From michael at priori.net Tue Jul 1 13:51:24 1997
From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:51:24 -0700
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID:
At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote:
> is there a view from the arin board that with stringent
>dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that
>it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route
>20/s?
First, let's not forget that ARIN is a membership organization and the the
"arin board" is the Board of Trustees, not "Directors". One would hope that
the board members will not "direct" but will act on behalf of the members.
Therefore, the view from the ARIN board is less important than the
collective views of the ARIN members.
I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in
order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a
PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities
considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely
all be members of ARIN. But I don't think we can clearly see how routing
table sizes, dampening algorithms and filtering will work into the equation
until we have some substantive discussions among ISPs. Right now a lot of
them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping quiet for some
reason.
I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
reports.
>Again, how would you implement such dampening criteria? call a meeting of
>the Internet Cabal? Ask the IETF to pass a resolution in Munich?
The Internet Cabal is the product of a fevered imagination and has more to
do with USENET than the real Internet so they are irrelevant to this
question. And I don't think that an IETF resolution is as important as
getting some agreement from the network operators themselves. Remember, the
IETF deals more with standards and protocols while the issue of IP
allocations is currently difficult mostly because of operational issues.
********************************************************
Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
********************************************************
From spsprunk at paranet.com Tue Jul 1 17:22:40 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:22:40 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To:
References:
<3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 10:51 01-07-97 -0700, you wrote:
>I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in
>order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a
>PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities
>considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely
>all be members of ARIN.
I'm sure network operators around the world will be watching intently at
the first ARIN meeting; this issue is sure to come up. What are the
expectations on proposal/voting procedure for ARIN? Can we expect a policy
decision during/after the first meeting?
>But I don't think we can clearly see how routing table sizes, dampening
>algorithms and filtering will work into the equation until we have some
>substantive discussions among ISPs.
I doubt the large ISPs will take a position for or against this proposal
prior to the first ARIN meeting.
>Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping
>quiet for some reason.
Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything.
>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
>to adjust their filters.
Out of curiosity, what would be the rationalization for using more of the
(almost depleted) class C networks instead of a class A? There's close to
a hundred A's available, and RIPE-155 has shown that a class A is perfect
for this kind of plan.
Is anyone interested in debating the conditions, size, or class for such
allocations?
>But before we can decide just how this should be done we need some hard
>numbers, especially on how many additional routes the new PI space would
>add.
In the case of 4096x /20 PI allocations, it would be reasonable that within
the first 2 months the number of routes will increase by 4096 (and hit the
50k mark again).
The trick, however, is to allocate them and place restrictions on them such
that after 60 days an equivalent or larger number of routes would be
dropped, as small ISPs were able to transition out of the PA blocks they
currently advertise as more-specifics. I'm sure the large ISPs would be
happy to increase filtering on the PA blocks to "encourage" the return of
said more-specifics.
>And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear
>to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports.
It'd be nice if there were some way to penalize ISPs on the "most wanted"
list. Perhaps denial of new allocations based on measurable routing
inefficiency?
Stephen
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 12:10:16 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:10:16 +0100
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <33B92BE8.34CD@ix.netcom.com>
Michael,
Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > is there a view from the arin board that with stringent
> >dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that
> >it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route
> >20/s?
>
> First, let's not forget that ARIN is a membership organization and the the
> "arin board" is the Board of Trustees, not "Directors". One would hope that
> the board members will not "direct" but will act on behalf of the members.
> Therefore, the view from the ARIN board is less important than the
> collective views of the ARIN members.
Lets hope that this is the prevaling attitude or the Board of
Trustees.
>
> I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in
> order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a
> PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities
> considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely
> all be members of ARIN. But I don't think we can clearly see how routing
> table sizes, dampening algorithms and filtering will work into the equation
> until we have some substantive discussions among ISPs. Right now a lot of
> them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping quiet for some
> reason.
>
> I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
> than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
> in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
> it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
> to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
> done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
> the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
> the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
> reports.
Good suggeation in principal. I would like to see some hard policy
suggesting that an under some more open capability to be allocated
/19's or /18's in the case of smaller or new ISP's.
>
> >Again, how would you implement such dampening criteria? call a meeting of
> >the Internet Cabal? Ask the IETF to pass a resolution in Munich?
>
> The Internet Cabal is the product of a fevered imagination and has more to
> do with USENET than the real Internet so they are irrelevant to this
> question. And I don't think that an IETF resolution is as important as
> getting some agreement from the network operators themselves. Remember, the
> IETF deals more with standards and protocols while the issue of IP
> allocations is currently difficult mostly because of operational issues.
Agreed in here. It does seem that if RFC2050 and RFC1918 are to be
used
as guidelines, than some clarification need to be done within these
RFC's by the IETF, or some broadening of the interpratation of those
RFC's by the ARIN.
>
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
>
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jerry at fc.net Tue Jul 1 18:38:28 1997
From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:38:28 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:51:24 PDT."
Message-ID: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net>
In message , Michael Dillon writes:
>At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>> is there a view from the arin board that with stringent
>>dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that
>>it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route
>>20/s?
...
>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
>reports.
The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total
table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case.
There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve
the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M,
where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions
or views. Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this
case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest
that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation,
but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely
allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near
term.
Now if we had some real data on the per flap costs, pathology of route
flap, effectiveness of flap dampening, etc. Right now we are seriously
lacking data on flap. We need to ask where does flap orginate?
Can we dampen it at the source? (Vadim's suggestion of link bounce
dampening might be useful.) Also there is some hint of evidence to suggest
that some part of route flap is caused by policy changes. Changes
to allow for soft reconfigurate can help, but there is the router upgrade
problem again.
Backbone providers do not have a economic motive to dampen flap that
is customer originated, compared to dampening flap at the peer level.
Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over
the larger players, and I see this as a way to offset the cost of
renumbering. Since new allocations involve customer interaction, and
the customer interaction is the primary cost of renumbering, and renumbering
is fairly painless if the network is design properly. All modern hardware
and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small
bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR
records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire.
If you have people in PA /20, /21, etc., already you are going to have to
renumber, if you haven't started yet renumbering can be without any
distruption in services, and with a small finacial impact. Thus renumbering
once does not seem to be a huge issue to me. So far the only response
to this I have seen is that well, @Home got a large assignment,
which is completely different because @Home went to IANA, not to the
registries.
With this said, I do support the allocation of a routeable /19 to
providers that are a. Multihomed b. Have a history of efficient utilization
of addresses c. Are willing to renumber customers into their allocations
to maintain efficient utilization of routeable prefixes.
I have yet to see an objection to this proposal. Other than unfounded
complaints of "Its not fair."
If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put
before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time.
---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net
From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Tue Jul 1 20:41:35 1997
From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:41:35 -0700
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
References: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net>
Message-ID: <19970701174135.20217@bywater.songbird.com>
On Tue, Jul 01, 1997 at 05:38:28PM -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
> create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
> field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
> isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over
> the larger players,
I would be interested in seeing your justification for this last
statement -- it seems false on the face of it, since the costs of
large providers are completely covered by the money they make from
small providers...
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 1 21:32:08 1997
From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 18:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID:
> Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything.
Ah, Nixon's old "silent majority" scam. Thank you, but I've already been
bitten once by that bit of nonesense.
It is very presumptious to treat silence as agreement.
--karl--
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 15:55:37 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:55:37 +0100
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
References:
<3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <33B960B9.63CC@ix.netcom.com>
Stephen,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> At 10:51 01-07-97 -0700, you wrote:
> >I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in
> >order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a
> >PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities
> >considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely
> >all be members of ARIN.
>
> I'm sure network operators around the world will be watching intently at
> the first ARIN meeting; this issue is sure to come up. What are the
> expectations on proposal/voting procedure for ARIN? Can we expect a policy
> decision during/after the first meeting?
>
> >But I don't think we can clearly see how routing table sizes, dampening
> >algorithms and filtering will work into the equation until we have some
> >substantive discussions among ISPs.
>
> I doubt the large ISPs will take a position for or against this proposal
> prior to the first ARIN meeting.
>
> >Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping
> >quiet for some reason.
>
> Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything.
>
> >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
> >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
> >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
> >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
> >to adjust their filters.
>
> Out of curiosity, what would be the rationalization for using more of the
> (almost depleted) class C networks instead of a class A? There's close to
> a hundred A's available, and RIPE-155 has shown that a class A is perfect
> for this kind of plan.
>
> Is anyone interested in debating the conditions, size, or class for such
> allocations?
>
> >But before we can decide just how this should be done we need some hard
> >numbers, especially on how many additional routes the new PI space would
> >add.
>
> In the case of 4096x /20 PI allocations, it would be reasonable that within
> the first 2 months the number of routes will increase by 4096 (and hit the
> 50k mark again).
>
> The trick, however, is to allocate them and place restrictions on them such
> that after 60 days an equivalent or larger number of routes would be
> dropped, as small ISPs were able to transition out of the PA blocks they
> currently advertise as more-specifics. I'm sure the large ISPs would be
> happy to increase filtering on the PA blocks to "encourage" the return of
> said more-specifics.
>
> >And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear
> >to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports.
>
> It'd be nice if there were some way to penalize ISPs on the "most wanted"
> list. Perhaps denial of new allocations based on measurable routing
> inefficiency?
This might be something looking in to.
>
> Stephen
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 16:10:47 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:10:47 +0100
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
References: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net>
Message-ID: <33B96447.1F3C@ix.netcom.com>
Jeremy,
Jeremy Porter wrote:
>
> In message , Michael Dillon writes:
> >At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> >> is there a view from the arin board that with stringent
> >>dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that
> >>it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route
> >>20/s?
> ...
> >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
> >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
> >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
> >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
> >to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
> >done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
> >the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
> >the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
> >reports.
>
> The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total
> table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case.
Exactly what I was intimating earlier on another thread. And, hence,
the reason that if a Medium size ISP startup in being considered,
which I am sure many "Recional" ones will, this argument supports
what I had indicated earlier in some alloance for allocations
of /19's right off.
> There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve
> the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M,
> where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions
> or views. Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this
> case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest
> that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation,
> but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely
> allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near
> term.
Good point here. ANd again supports my original argument and
question.
>
> Now if we had some real data on the per flap costs, pathology of route
> flap, effectiveness of flap dampening, etc. Right now we are seriously
> lacking data on flap. We need to ask where does flap orginate?
> Can we dampen it at the source? (Vadim's suggestion of link bounce
> dampening might be useful.) Also there is some hint of evidence to suggest
> that some part of route flap is caused by policy changes. Changes
> to allow for soft reconfigurate can help, but there is the router upgrade
> problem again.
Yep. But if there has been reasonable hardware overdesign in place
the stressing of routing hardware should not be that big of a problem.
However this is not usually the case, as you indicate here.
> Backbone providers do not have a economic motive to dampen flap that
> is customer originated, compared to dampening flap at the peer level.
>
> Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
> create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
> field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
> isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over
> the larger players, and I see this as a way to offset the cost of
> renumbering. Since new allocations involve customer interaction, and
> the customer interaction is the primary cost of renumbering, and renumbering
> is fairly painless if the network is design properly.
Very well put. I agree compleately. Hence my earlier argument or
suggestion
that initialy allocating /20 or /21's is even worse in a initial startup
Medium ISP situation.
> All modern hardware
> and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small
> bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR
> records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire.
This should not be necessary at all.
>
> If you have people in PA /20, /21, etc., already you are going to have to
> renumber, if you haven't started yet renumbering can be without any
> distruption in services, and with a small finacial impact. Thus renumbering
> once does not seem to be a huge issue to me. So far the only response
> to this I have seen is that well, @Home got a large assignment,
> which is completely different because @Home went to IANA, not to the
> registries.
Seems that now you are agreeing with me. Where earlier you were not.
I agree that in most cases an allocation of /20 or 21's for small ISP's
me be ok in the short term, this is not true for Medium or larger ISP's.
IMHO, this is something that should be considered a policy issue for
most of the reasons you state here.
>
> With this said, I do support the allocation of a routeable /19 to
> providers that are a. Multihomed b. Have a history of efficient utilization
> of addresses c. Are willing to renumber customers into their allocations
> to maintain efficient utilization of routeable prefixes.
>
> I have yet to see an objection to this proposal. Other than unfounded
> complaints of "Its not fair."
We have seen them right here on this list.
>
> If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put
> before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time.
I would be happy to calaborate with you on this.
>
> ---
> Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net
> PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
> http://www.fc.net
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From spsprunk at paranet.com Tue Jul 1 22:47:34 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:47:34 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
>>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
>>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
>>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
>>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
>>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
>>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
>>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
>>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
>>reports.
>
>The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total
>table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case.
The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be
specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19
(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size,
only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long
term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the
large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size.
>There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve
>the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M,
>where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions
>or views.
N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s)
for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since
the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net.
> Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this
>case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest
>that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation,
>but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely
>allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near
>term.
Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink).
>Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
>create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
>field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
>isn't the case.
I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that
creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would:
. Reduce routing table entries
. Reduce the effects of flap
. Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks
. Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks
. Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition
>All modern hardware
>and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small
>bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR
>records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire.
You're ignoring the important minority here: servers.
>If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put
>before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time.
As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well.
Stephen
From jerry at fc.net Tue Jul 1 23:59:32 1997
From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:59:32 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:47:34 CDT."
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net>
In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen Spru
nk writes:
>At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
>>>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
>>>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
>>>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
>>>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
>>>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
>>>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
>>>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
>>>reports.
>>
>>The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total
>>table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case.
>
>The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be
>specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19
>(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size,
>only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long
>term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the
>large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size.
This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on
the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would
expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally impacting
the base perceived need. We would defenitely require some type of assurance
of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small
customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space,
which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently.
So I still don't see a net reduction.
I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
>>There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve
>>the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M,
>>where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions
>>or views.
>
>N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s)
>for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since
>the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net.
M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route
appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to
multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the
number of possible multihome sites.
>> Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this
>>case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest
>>that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation,
>>but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely
>>allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near
>>term.
>
>Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink).
Again, I disagree. There seems to be little evidence to suggest
that de-aggregated /20s are being announced by single homed/dual home
systems.
>>Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
>>create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
>>field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
>>isn't the case.
>
>I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that
>creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would:
>
>. Reduce routing table entries
>. Reduce the effects of flap
>. Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks
>. Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks
>. Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition
>
>>All modern hardware
>>and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small
>>bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR
>>records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire.
>
>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers.
I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge.
I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs,
and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful).
>>If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put
>>before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time.
>
>As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well.
>
>
>Stephen
>
---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net
From justin at priori.net Wed Jul 2 01:26:50 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:26:50 -0700
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net>
>of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small
>customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space,
>which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently.
>So I still don't see a net reduction.
Uhm, who contractually disallows that? I.e. if I have provider A space and
a provider B connection in addition to my provider A connection, both would
have to announce the block which provider A allocated to me, specifically,
or it would be /impossible/ to use both lines at the same time.
>
>I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
>announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I
would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump
anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I
would be greatly appreciative.
>>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers.
>
>I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge.
>I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs,
>and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful).
Having been involved in all of the discussions at Erol's as to their
renumbering plan (they are renumbering out of their original PA space at
the moment), the one thing that is a real nightmare for ISPs to renumber is
name servers. I really do not envy their position in telling 200k users to
go into their settings and change their DNS server IP's.
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 2 08:48:43 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 07:48:43 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net>
References: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702074843.0165a178@texoma.net>
At 10:26 PM 7/1/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote:
>
>You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I
>would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump
>anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I
>would be greatly appreciative.
You can have the smallest lab in the world, our 7206 at Las Colinas.
Contact via private email for passwords.
---
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365
fax 903-868-8551
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 2 09:25:03 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 08:25:03 -0500
Subject: summing up, a plea for leadership & continued discussion
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702082503.0157c62c@texoma.net>
At 05:47 PM 7/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>COOK: ... one might
>be well advised to sum up at the end of the suggestion period with
>something besides a blanket dismissal - if one is interested in any kind
>of a continuing dialog.
Wayne Shirley , chairman of the New Mexico PUC,
writes:
> Just a note here. My involvement with the National Association of
>Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has taught me that starting a
>"public" and "group" statement of principles can help move the flock
>along in the right direction. It isn't very "action" oriented but it
>can provide a "soapbox" for pushing the right issues.
>
>Wayne
How about it?
---
Larry Vaden
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 2 09:49:16 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net>
Message-ID:
of the backbones listed in the keynote boardwatch survey, how many and
which, if any, are running with provider allocated space as opposed to
provider independent space. would the answer be zero? are there any other
large national services that may find themselves in the same position as
erols on renumbering?
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From astraus at earthlink.net Wed Jul 2 14:39:30 1997
From: astraus at earthlink.net (Andrew Strau)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 14:39:30 -0400
Subject: IP assignment
Message-ID: <33BAA062.7C73@earthlink.net>
Hello:
We are an ISP in Miami, FL and Colombia and we are looking for class C
or B IP's. Is this the rigth place to request this ? If not can you gide
us to the right place.
Thank You
Andrew
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 06:54:51 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:54:51 +0100
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
References: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net>
Message-ID: <33BA337B.5EA1@ix.netcom.com>
Jeremy and all,
Jeremy Porter wrote:
>
> In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen Spru
> nk writes:
> >At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
> >>>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
> >>>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
> >>>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
> >>>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
> >>>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
> >>>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
> >>>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
> >>>reports.
> >>
> >>The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total
> >>table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case.
> >
> >The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be
> >specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19
> >(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size,
> >only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long
> >term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the
> >large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size.
>
> This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on
> the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would
> expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally impacting
> the base perceived need. We would defenitely require some type of assurance
> of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small
> customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space,
> which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently.
> So I still don't see a net reduction.
Yep! I really don't either.
>
> I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
> announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
>
> >>There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve
> >>the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M,
> >>where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions
> >>or views.
> >
> >N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s)
> >for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since
> >the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net.
>
> M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route
> appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to
> multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the
> number of possible multihome sites.
Exactly! And again, curently is one of the reasons why I possed
my original question as suggested that if there is to be a new
multihomed ISP starting up that there should be some consideration for
/19 allocations initialy. Benifits everybody as I see it. >;)
>
> >> Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this
> >>case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest
> >>that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation,
> >>but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely
> >>allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near
> >>term.
> >
> >Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink).
>
> Again, I disagree. There seems to be little evidence to suggest
> that de-aggregated /20s are being announced by single homed/dual home
> systems.
>
> >>Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to
> >>create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing
> >>field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this
> >>isn't the case.
> >
> >I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that
> >creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would:
> >
> >. Reduce routing table entries
> >. Reduce the effects of flap
> >. Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks
> >. Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks
> >. Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition
> >
> >>All modern hardware
> >>and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small
> >>bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR
> >>records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire.
> >
> >You're ignoring the important minority here: servers.
>
> I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge.
> I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs,
> and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful).
I agree that this is not very hard, as you put it here, but is
not necessary and somewhat time consuming, with potential user
impact. I think the big picture is more important in this regard.
>
> >>If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put
> >>before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time.
> >
> >As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well.
> >
> >
> >Stephen
> >
>
> ---
> Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net
> PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
> http://www.fc.net
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jerry at fc.net Wed Jul 2 14:42:12 1997
From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 13:42:12 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:26:50 PDT."
<3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net>
Message-ID: <199707021842.NAA22639@freeside.fc.net>
In message <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8 at priori.net>, "Justin W. Newton" wr
ites:
>
>>of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small
>>customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space,
>>which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently.
>>So I still don't see a net reduction.
>
>Uhm, who contractually disallows that? I.e. if I have provider A space and
>a provider B connection in addition to my provider A connection, both would
>have to announce the block which provider A allocated to me, specifically,
>or it would be /impossible/ to use both lines at the same time.
Standard MCI and Sprint contract disallow use of no PA assigned space.
I'm not saying this can't be negoitated, but the standard contracts
do state this.
>>
>>I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
>>announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
>
>You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I
>would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump
>anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I
>would be greatly appreciative.
We've got full routes from several sources, I'll setup a dump later today
and make that available.
>>>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers.
>>
>>I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge.
>>I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs,
>>and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful).
>
>Having been involved in all of the discussions at Erol's as to their
>renumbering plan (they are renumbering out of their original PA space at
>the moment), the one thing that is a real nightmare for ISPs to renumber is
>name servers. I really do not envy their position in telling 200k users to
>go into their settings and change their DNS server IP's.
But, PPP/DHCP should be able to assign the DNS for the Win95/Mac customers
automatically, plus the use of NATs means that the transition can happen
seamlessly. We don't even tell users what the name servers are any
more, unless they really need it. We've moved our name servers 3
times now from a UUnet block, to a Net99 block, to our PI space.
We will probably return the PA space well before all customers are renumbered,
but at least we won't have to punch holes in someone elses blocks.
The name server issue is in two parts:
customer name resolution: these addresses don't even have to be announced
outside dns resolution: These need to be assigned, but by changing the
host record and IP aliasing the addressing, and being very dilligent
about excess glue records this can be done seamlessly.
>*********************************************************
>Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
>Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
>PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
>Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
>"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
>*********************************************************
>
---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net
From jdfalk at priori.net Wed Jul 2 15:06:47 1997
From: jdfalk at priori.net (J.D. Falk)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:06:47 -0700
Subject: /20's for the needy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> [9707.01]
References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net>
On Jul 1, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that
> creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would:
>
> ... Reduce routing table entries
> ... Reduce the effects of flap
> ... Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks
> ... Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks
> ... Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition
The important thing up there, though, is "if done correctly."
How are we, the networking community, going to ensure that this
/is/ done correctly? There are really only two possibilities
that I can think of (though, of course, they aren't mutually
exclusive): education and punishment.
By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm
policies for revoking allocations or something like that.
BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or
even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm
really just brainstorming here.
*********************************************************
J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840
Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 2 16:28:37 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:28:37 -0400
Subject: IP assignment
In-Reply-To: <33BAA062.7C73@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970702162837.006c0904@lint.cisco.com>
Go to your upstream ISP.
- paul
At 02:39 PM 07/02/97 -0400, Andrew Strau wrote:
>Hello:
>
>We are an ISP in Miami, FL and Colombia and we are looking for class C
>or B IP's. Is this the rigth place to request this ? If not can you gide
>us to the right place.
>
>Thank You
>Andrew
>
>
From spsprunk at paranet.com Wed Jul 2 18:20:14 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 17:20:14 -0500
Subject: /20's for the needy
In-Reply-To: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net>
References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 12:06 02-07-97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Jul 1, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that
>> creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would:
> The important thing up there, though, is "if done correctly."
> How are we, the networking community, going to ensure that this
> /is/ done correctly? There are really only two possibilities
> that I can think of (though, of course, they aren't mutually
> exclusive): education and punishment.
My expectation was that there would be guidelines about who qualifies for
an allocation out of the block, and rules about future allocations if you
get one; here's what has been bouncing around in my head:
To qualify:
. Must have an ASN
. Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already
. Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050
. Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days
Future:
. Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically
. Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return
> By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
> NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
> to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
> having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in
the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting
aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their
advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any
problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest
claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want
any assistance.
> And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm
> policies for revoking allocations or something like that.
I would think that revoking past allocations would be too expensive to
defend in court; denying new allocations should be enough to bully most
ISPs into compliance.
> BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or
> even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm
> really just brainstorming here.
Stephen
From justin at priori.net Wed Jul 2 19:45:25 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:45:25 -0700
Subject: /20's for the needy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
References: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702164525.00cf274c@priori.net>
At 05:20 PM 7/2/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>Future:
>. Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically
>. Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return
>
>> By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
>> NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
>> to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
>> having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
>
>I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in
>the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting
>aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their
>advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any
>problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest
>claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want
>any assistance.
Wait until I finish going through the list, finding out what really /is/
going on with the announcements (there are some cases when advertising a
more specific is a perfectly reasonable thing to do), and begin the process
of getting press coverage as to how these people are "poisoning" the
internet. I am as willing to play nice as the next guy, but I won't see
the net damaged by a handful of people too lazy to do the right thing.
Expect the report to be ready within the next few days, offers of help to
go out next week, and the real pressure to follow.
People need to stop peeing in the water the rest of us are swimming in.
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 15:23:30 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:23:30 +0100
Subject: /20's for the needy
References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com>
Stephen and all,
Here is my take on this situation. (See below Stephens comments)
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
-snip-
>
> My expectation was that there would be guidelines about who qualifies for
> an allocation out of the block, and rules about future allocations if you
> get one; here's what has been bouncing around in my head:
>
> To qualify:
> . Must have an ASN
> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already
> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050
> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days
My idea's to Qualify.
1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of
qualification.
2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
startup
than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient
use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on
projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050.
4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days
>
> Future:
> . Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically
> . Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return
>
> > By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
> > NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
> > to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
> > having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
>
> I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in
> the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting
> aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their
> advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any
> problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest
> claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want
> any assistance.
>
> > And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm
> > policies for revoking allocations or something like that.
>
> I would think that revoking past allocations would be too expensive to
> defend in court; denying new allocations should be enough to bully most
> ISPs into compliance.
I think that this may be difficult to defend in court as well, unless
spicific guidelines or specs are added to RFC2050 or, made part of the
future ARIN published policies/requirnments. ISP's or new start-up
ISP's must show in a formatted planning document stating that they
will comply with these spicific steps (As I indicated above), within
a givin time period to be spicificaly stated.
>
> > BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or
> > even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm
> > really just brainstorming here.
>
> Stephen
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 15:27:38 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:27:38 +0100
Subject: /20's for the needy
References: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702164525.00cf274c@priori.net>
Message-ID: <33BAABAA.7129@ix.netcom.com>
Justin,
Justin W. Newton wrote:
>
> At 05:20 PM 7/2/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >Future:
> >. Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically
> >. Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return
> >
> >> By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
> >> NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
> >> to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
> >> having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
> >
> >I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in
> >the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting
> >aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their
> >advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any
> >problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest
> >claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want
> >any assistance.
>
> Wait until I finish going through the list, finding out what really /is/
> going on with the announcements (there are some cases when advertising a
> more specific is a perfectly reasonable thing to do), and begin the process
> of getting press coverage as to how these people are "poisoning" the
> internet. I am as willing to play nice as the next guy, but I won't see
> the net damaged by a handful of people too lazy to do the right thing.
> Expect the report to be ready within the next few days, offers of help to
> go out next week, and the real pressure to follow.
Always willing to help in any way I can. >;) Just to let me
know... I am sure many others are as well. Remember you are
always going to have your 10%'ers out there. It is inevitable.
>
> People need to stop peeing in the water the rest of us are swimming in.
>
> *********************************************************
> Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
> Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> *********************************************************
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 11:07:38 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 10:07:38 -0500
Subject: /20's for the needy
In-Reply-To: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 20:23 02-07-97 +0100, you wrote:
>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> . Must have an ASN
>1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of
>qualification.
I wanted to separate the ASN and PI block application processes, since it's
a totally separate function and has its own list of requirements. I'd hate
to slip up and give a PI block to someone who never got an ASN.
>> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already
>2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
>startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup,
it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people
who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen
B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block.
>> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050
>3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient
> use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on
> projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050.
Again, what does is mean, and what is the intended effect?
>> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days
>4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days
If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising"
changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a
future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the
lead time for installing circuits from most LECs.
Stephen
From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 11:50:35 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 10:50:35 -0500
Subject: when & how could policy be changed
In-Reply-To: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703105035.006ac58c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 22:59 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen
Sprunk writes:
>>The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be
>>specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19
>>(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size,
>>only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long
>>term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the
>>large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size.
>
>This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on
>the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would
>expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally
>impacting the base perceived need.
My history maybe be a bit lacking, but wasn't Sean's /19 filter to cut out
the more-specifics being advertised out of the large ISPs' PA blocks? I
don't believe this had anything to do with a rush on the InterNIC.
The rush on the InterNIC for Class B networks was the cause of CIDR
deployment, and is relevant in that we have learned the need for
restricting who gets allocations of what size.
>We would defenitely require some type of assurance of a net reduction
>in table size,
Take a look at my suggested requirements in another thread.
>but this assumes that these small customers would be
>allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, which in a large number
>of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. So I still don't see a
>net reduction.
It's not contractually disallowed in any case I've seen. You can advertise
a Sprint PA block more-specific to MCI easily (and Sprint will cooperate by
passing on your more-specific to other AS's); this is the exact problem we
intend to tackle.
>I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
>announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
A number of people are working on producing numbers.
>>N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s)
>>for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since
>>the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net.
>
>M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route
>appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to
>multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the
>number of possible multihome sites.
No, anyone can multihome now who wants to, it's just very painful if you're
using PA addresses.
Stephen
From rgeist at wahl.com Thu Jul 3 12:56:52 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:56:52 -0400
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
Message-ID: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com>
[Federal Register: July 2, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 35895-35897]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy97-166]
[[Page 35895]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names; Notice
[[Page 35896]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain Names
AGENCY: Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the current
and future system(s) for the registration of Internet domain names. The
Department invites the public to submit written comments in paper or
electronic form.1
\1\ This request for public comment is not intended to supplant
or otherwise affect the work of other public advisory groups,
established under law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Patrice Washington, Office of
Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20230. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for electronic
access and filing addresses and further information on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Bruening, NTIA, (202) 482-1816.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
The address for comments submitted in electronic form is
dns at ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should be in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed information
about electronic filing is available on the NTIA website, http://
www.ntia.doc.gov.
Further Information on Submitting Comments
Submit written comments in paper or electronic form at the above
addresses. Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a
version on diskette in the formats specified above. To assist
reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in response to
questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice
(Appropriate Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues,
Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues).
Commenters should address each section on a separate page and should
indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they
are responding.
Background
The rapid growth in the use of the Internet has led to increasing
public concern about the current Internet domain name registration
systems. According to Internet Monthly Report, registration of domain
names within a few top-level domains (.com, .net, .org) has increased
from approximately 400 per month in 1993 to as many as 70,000 per month
in 1996, the overwhelming majority in the .com category. The enormous
growth and commercialization of the Internet has raised numerous
questions about current domain name registration systems. In addition,
the present system will likely undergo modification when the National
Science Foundation's cooperative agreement (NSF agreement) with Network
Solutions Inc. to register and administer second-level domains for
three top-level domains expires in 1998. Resolution of these issues
will also affect the future operation of the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII).
The United States Government played a central role in the initial
development, deployment, and operation of domain name registration
systems, and through the NSF agreement as well as Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) agreement(s) continues to play a role.
In recent years, however, Internet expansion has been driven primarily
by the private sector. The Internet has operated by consensus rather
than by government regulation. Many believe that the Internet's
decentralized structure accounts at least in part for its rapid growth.
The Government has supported the privatization and
commercialization of the Internet through actions such as the
transition from the NSFNET backbone to commercial backbones. The
Government supports continued private sector leadership for the
Internet and believes that the transition to private sector control
should continue. The stability of the Internet depends on a fully
interconnected and interoperable domain name system that must be
preserved during any transition.
Various private sector groups have proposed systems for allocating
and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs). The Government is
studying the proposals and the underlying issues to determine what
role, if any, it should play. The Government has not endorsed any plan
at this time but believes that it is very important to reach consensus
on these policy issues as soon as possible.
The United States Government seeks the views of the public
regarding these proposals and broader policy issues as well.
Specifically, the Government seeks information on the following issues:
A. Appropriate Principles
The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should
evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of Internet
domain names. Are the following principles appropriate? Are they
complete? If not, how should they be revised? How might such principles
best be fostered?
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration
system should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and
registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of
the Internet, however. The addressing scheme should not prevent any
user from connecting to any other site.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should develop
stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain name
registration and management that adequately defines responsibilities
and maintains accountability.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over
time.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be
open, robust, efficient, and fair.
e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and efficient
resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over proprietary rights.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
domain name systems be administered? What should the makeup of such an
entity be?
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for
deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering
plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there
private/public sector administered models or regimes that can be used
for domain name registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard
setting processes, or
[[Page 35897]]
spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of national or
international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
national and international domain name registration systems?
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g.,
.US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are
gTLD management issues separable from questions about International
Standards Organization (ISO) country code domains?
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name
registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the relationship
of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system name
and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers continue to
interoperate and coordinate?
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using shared
registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs
coexist?
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who
will determine these and how?
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the
registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected
on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for
registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to
determine if it conflicts with a trademark, a trade name, a geographic
indication, etc.? If so, what standards should be used? Who should
conduct the preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be
done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of
the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute settlement?
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark
rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What
entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are national courts the
only appropriate forum for such disputes? Specifically, is there a role
for national/international governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names,
registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential
conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who should create the
database(s)? How should such a database(s) be used?
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that
they have a basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what
information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On
the basis of what criteria?
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
William M. Daley,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-17215 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-U
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Jul 3 13:46:08 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:46:08 -0400
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
In-Reply-To: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com>
At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
>
>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
>Domain Names; Notice
>
Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names;
it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP
address allocation polices in [greater] North America.
- paul
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 13:47:43 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 12:47:43 -0500
Subject: Class A ARIN Clones
Message-ID: <01BC87AF.4DB70D80@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote:
@
@ >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
@ >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
@
@ I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup,
@ it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people
@ who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen
@ B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block.
@
Maybe companies with /8s ("Class A's") should be
encouraged to become registries and lease out
some of their space, just like ARIN. As long as new
private companies like ARIN are going to be getting
into this business, there is no reason that existing
companies can not participate.
John Curran of BBN is on the proposed Board of
ARIN. Maybe he can comment
on whether BBN would be willing to allow allocations
to be made from their stock-pile of addresses. Yes,
routing may have to be adjusted but there could be
other benefits.
Holding 3 /8s is over 1% of the total IPv4 address space
and a higher percentage of the usable space. The
U.S. Government via the Department of Commerce
and the Federal Trade Commission will eventually
have to determine whether these sorts of allocations
give companies an unfair advantage in the market
place.
That can only happen AFTER companies determine
their costs of renumbering and the costs of obtaining
allocations. Rather than have regulation BEFORE the
fact people have campaigned for review after the fact.
Companies have to add their costs of participating in
these forums into those costs.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:58:16 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:58:16 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #1
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125816.00d1c154@texoma.net>
IP addresses are essential for the conduct of an Internet
Service Provider's business, are a limited and public resource, and there
is a need for a fair, equal, expedient and rational system of allocating
such resource which will maximize competition and avoid the unnecessary
denial of any person or entity from equal access to the resource or
otherwise unreasonably limiting anyone's ability to compete on equal footing.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:58:39 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:58:39 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #2
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125839.00d1c154@texoma.net>
It is recognized that multi-homing is an important objective of
ISPs wanting to provide the highest quality service and that multi-homing
can not be effectively accomplished without a routable IP block.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:59:35 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:59:35 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #4
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125935.0070509c@texoma.net>
The need to correct the system exists now, and is pressing for
the individual businesses which are or want to be multi-homed in order to
compete equally and effectively and said businesses will suffer
disadvantage and harm during any delay in implementing a new system or
criteria and that justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 14:00:07 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:07 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703130007.0070509c@texoma.net>
The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear
legal authority.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:59:02 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:59:02 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125902.01844fc4@texoma.net>
It is generally recognized that the current criteria employed by
InterNIC (but not APNIC or RIPE) to allocate IP blocks discriminates
unfairly against small and moderate sized ISPs.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 14:00:33 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 -0500
Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net>
pagans at texoma.net, the group which has proposed pagans at texoma.net principle
#1 thru #5, consists of:
Linda Avila
Gary Corley
I. L. Freed
Scott Goode
W. Scott McCollough
Wayne Shirley
Andrew Joseph Vaden
Larry Vaden
Peter R Veeck
David Stagner
Eric Weisberg
Gloria Weisberg
It is our goal, by offering these principles, to begin a discussion
regarding allocation of routable CIDR IP blocks for use by small and
moderate sized ISPs.
Your participation is important and is requested.
---
Larry Vaden
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:17:44 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:17:44 -0500
Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees
Message-ID: <01BC87B3.7EEEB480@webster.unety.net>
Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ?
Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be
participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ?
You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"...
Who "approved" it ?
What is their authority to approve it ?
Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not
be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials
agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to
review AFTER the fact...?
=======
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@
@ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since
@ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list.
@ Please allow me to clarify a few things.
@
@ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full
@ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount
@ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational.
@ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure
@ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them.
@
@ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have
@ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties
@ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN.
@
@ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding
@ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you
@ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select
@ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time
@ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational.
@
@ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion.
@ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will
@ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the
@ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand.
@
@ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life
@ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on
@ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership
@ involvement, if you didn't agree with it?
@
@ Please try to be a little more patient.
@
@ Thanks,
@ - Kim
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 14:28:21 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:28:21 -0700
Subject: /20's for the needy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com>
References: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703112821.00c322d0@priori.net>
At 10:07 AM 7/3/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising"
>changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a
>future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the
>lead time for installing circuits from most LECs.
60-90 days is more in line with long haul providers though.
(Yes, you can get it done in 30, maybe, but it usually takes longer).
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From kimh at internic.net Thu Jul 3 14:29:15 1997
From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:29:15 -0400
Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees
Message-ID: <01BC87BD.7C470890@jazz.internic.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 2:18 PM
To: 'Kim Hubbard'; 'pagan at apnic.net'
Cc: 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR'
Subject: RE: ARIN Board of Trustees
Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ?
Because the discussion was about policy. I probably should've copied it to the naipr list, though.
Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be
participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ?
TBD
You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"...
Who "approved" it ?
What is their authority to approve it ?
Hmm, approved may have been the wrong word. You can fill in whatever word you like.
Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not
be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials
agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to
review AFTER the fact...?
No.
Kim Hubbard
InterNIC Registry
=======
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@
@ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since
@ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list.
@ Please allow me to clarify a few things.
@
@ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full
@ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount
@ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational.
@ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure
@ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them.
@
@ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have
@ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties
@ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN.
@
@ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding
@ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you
@ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select
@ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time
@ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational.
@
@ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion.
@ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will
@ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the
@ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand.
@
@ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life
@ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on
@ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership
@ involvement, if you didn't agree with it?
@
@ Please try to be a little more patient.
@
@ Thanks,
@ - Kim
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 14:33:10 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:33:10 -0700
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com>
References: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703113310.00c4c808@priori.net>
At 01:46 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
>
>>
>>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
>>Domain Names; Notice
>>
>
>Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names;
>it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP
>address allocation polices in [greater] North America.
Leave poor Rudy alone, he's not very bright, he has only been out of law
school a short time, and has no comprehension of netiquette. Not bad for
the legal counsel of an "ISP Trade Association" eh?
For more shining examples http://www.usipa.org
Justin "I am glad that I can no longer in any way be associated with this
guy" Newton
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:45:47 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:45:47 -0500
Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees
Message-ID: <01BC87B7.8285C120@webster.unety.net>
OK...let's summarize...
1. The ARIN discussion list exists and does relate to ARIN.
2. Network Solutions, Inc. (i.e. SAIC) has not yet staffed ARIN
even though ARIN was announced in January, 1997.
3. ARIN was not recently approved, that NSF "spin" must have
been a smoke-screen.
4. The ARIN Board members are busy and do not have time for ARIN.
5. More beauracracies need to be put in place (BoT, AC, iPOC, PAB, etc.)
before one can justify why no decisions can be made.
6. The U.S. Government may have to regulate IP allocations
BEFORE the fact, rather than review AFTER the fact.
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 1:29 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@
@
@ -----Original Message-----
@ From: Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net]
@ Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 2:18 PM
@ To: 'Kim Hubbard'; 'pagan at apnic.net'
@ Cc: 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR'
@ Subject: RE: ARIN Board of Trustees
@
@
@ Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ?
@
@ Because the discussion was about policy. I probably should've copied it to the naipr list, though.
@
@ Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be
@ participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ?
@
@ TBD
@
@ You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"...
@ Who "approved" it ?
@ What is their authority to approve it ?
@
@ Hmm, approved may have been the wrong word. You can fill in whatever word you like.
@
@ Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not
@ be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials
@ agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to
@ review AFTER the fact...?
@
@ No.
@
@ Kim Hubbard
@ InterNIC Registry
@ =======
@
@ On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@ @
@ @ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since
@ @ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list.
@ @ Please allow me to clarify a few things.
@ @
@ @ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full
@ @ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount
@ @ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational.
@ @ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure
@ @ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them.
@ @
@ @ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have
@ @ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties
@ @ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN.
@ @
@ @ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding
@ @ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you
@ @ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select
@ @ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time
@ @ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational.
@ @
@ @ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion.
@ @ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will
@ @ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the
@ @ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand.
@ @
@ @ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life
@ @ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on
@ @ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership
@ @ involvement, if you didn't agree with it?
@ @
@ @ Please try to be a little more patient.
@ @
@ @ Thanks,
@ @ - Kim
@ @
@ @
@ @
@
@ --
@ Jim Fleming
@ Unir Corporation
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Jul 3 14:52:12 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:52:12 -0400
Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 CDT."
<3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net>
References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <199707031852.OAA16496@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 CDT, Larry Vaden said:
> It is our goal, by offering these principles, to begin a discussion
> regarding allocation of routable CIDR IP blocks for use by small and
> moderate sized ISPs.
>
> Your participation is important and is requested.
Aren't there already mailing lists for this?
I'll overlook the fact that you have a number of "it is generally recognized"
statements that are, in fact, *not* generally recognized, and subject to
dispute. In particular, I found principle number 3 a bit hard to swallow,
given that InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE were all (the last I heard) using
essentially the same criteria.
In fact, said "same criteria" caused a large flamefest on the NAIPR list
around Feb 6, where the whole hangup was that I (and a number of other
people) mistakenly thought RFC2050 was the entire list of criteria.
RIPE also uses RIPE-140 and a few other documents, and Scott Bradner
(I think it was Scott, anyhow) informed me that InterNIC and APNIC used
pretty much the same additional criteria.
Having said that, I don't think I'll be joining the mailing list if
you can't quantify the difference in criteria, and how it "unfairly
discriminates".
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:48:44 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:48:44 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
Message-ID: <01BC87B7.D34969E0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 12:46 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote:
@ At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
@
@ >
@ >Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
@ >Domain Names; Notice
@ >
@
@ Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names;
@ it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP
@ address allocation polices in [greater] North America.
@
Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
What about the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:51:30 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:51:30 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
Message-ID: <01BC87B8.36CF0380@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 8:37 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@ Hello rudolph,
@
@ some process advice for those of us who have already seen this
@ announcement many times on many other lists. Naipr is devoted to a
@ discussion of the formation of ARIN. ARIN implements IP numbers. IP
@ numbers are an absolutely separate topic of discussion from gTLDs. There
@ are plenty of lists for discussion of gTLDs. NAIPR is*NOT* among them.
@
@ NOR is pagan. Pagan is for discussion of IP registry policy. IP is NOT DNS.
@ Therefore PAGAN is NOT an appropriate list for publication of this
@ material either.
@
Translation:
The U.S. Government is going to be busy trying to
figure out the problems with the "sizzle" of domain
names while the real meat of the matter, the steak
is discussed in other forums.
To bring all of these issues into one forum would
expose the fact that a very small circle of friends
control both the IP allocations and the domain name
delegations and that might draw attention from the
U.S. Government.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 15:05:19 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:05:19 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5
Message-ID: <01BC87BA.24882420@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 1:00 PM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote:
@ The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear
@ legal authority.
@
@ submitted by pagans at texoma.net
@
I do not think this is the case. I can not imagine
that NSI would want to be responsible for the
IP address allocation activities.
>From what I understand, that is one of the reasons
that NSI is willing to pay to "launch" ARIN. NSI and
for that matter SAIC, do not need the "bad PR" that
constantly flows from the IP address allocation side
of the InterNIC.
NSI is probably able to spin the domain name
registry business back into the "good PR" light,
especially with all of the money they will have
once the NSF is out of the picture. (Instant 30%
increase in profits.)
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 15:17:22 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 -0500
Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net
In-Reply-To: <199707031852.OAA16496@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
References:
<3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net>
At 02:52 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>I'll overlook the fact that you have a number of "it is generally recognized"
>statements that are, in fact, *not* generally recognized, and subject to
>dispute. In particular, I found principle number 3 a bit hard to swallow,
>given that InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE were all (the last I heard) using
>essentially the same criteria.
May I offer in rebuttal the following excerpt from the full email from
RIPE, which is included below the excerpt for integrity purposes:
"Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of
address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this
amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range
of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit
provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from
this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your
Assignment window is 0."
-----full text of email from RIPE-----
Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 04:13:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: NCC Role Account
To: Larry Vaden
Subject: Registry us.texoma Procedures
X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444
X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:13:37 +0200
Sender: ncc at ripe.net
Dear Larry Vaden,
We have added
us.texoma
to the list of Local Internet Registries with the following particulars:
regid: us.texoma
org: Internet Texoma Inc.
type: PROVIDER
community: The registry will serve customers of Internet Texoma Inc,
community: an internet service provider in the United States which
community: serves public and private customers.Internet Texoma Inc.
community: is prepared to serve those not buying any other service
community: from Internet Texoma Inc.
address: Internet Texoma Inc.
address: 120 W Mulberry
address: US-75090 Sherman, TX
country: US CA MX
admin-c: Larry Vaden (LV21)
tech-c: Linda Avila (LA141-RIPE)
phone: +001 903 813 4500
fax-no: +001 903 868 8551
e-mail: registry at texoma.net
remark: multi-homed ISP
lst-localir: registry at texoma.net
lst-provs: info at texoma.net
lst-contrib: vaden at texoma.net
bill-addr: Internet Texoma Inc.
bill-addr: attn: Linda Avila, Exec VP
bill-addr: 120 W Mulberry
bill-addr: US-75090 Sherman, TX
bill-mail: avila at texoma.net
bill-ref: PO#970616A
bill-vatno: N/A US Corporation
bill-proto: E-MAIL ASCII
bill-categ: SMALL
bill-scheme: HALF-YEARLY
bill-remark: RIPE Invoice
reg-ack: LONG
The public part of this has been published in
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/registries/us.texoma
It is also accessible by by gopher, www and telnet.
Regarding the delegation of address space and related matters, please
contact . Please be sure to include your registry ID
us.texoma in all messages you send to us, in the following format:
X-NCC-RegID: us.texoma
This line can be placed in the message header, but also in the message body.
If you have sent requests in the past, which received no service,
please re-send these requests.
To make you familiar with the registry procedures and to provide
additional support in your start up phase, we currently follow a
"handholding" procedure for all new registries.
Each new registry gets a so called assignment window (AW).
This AW is initially 0. This means that you can not make any
assignment without prior approval from the RIPE NCC.
Please send all requests for address space to the RIPE NCC for prior
approval. We would like to see ripe-141 (European IP Network Number
Request Form) completed for every single request for address space
that you receive. This applies to requests from your customers as well
as for address space you may need for your internal network. We
always expect you to include your own comments and evaluation results
in every request you send to us. We will then approve the request or
recommend the assignment of a different amount of address space.
This procedure will only last for a short period of time until we are
both confident that you are familiar with the registration procedures.
We will then increase your assignment window so that you can make
assignments up to certain size yourself.
For the first request we receive from your registry we will assign the
address space. This means we will update the database and inform you
about the address space we have assigned.
Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of
address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this
amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range
of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit
provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from
this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your
Assignment window is 0.
Once you run out of the address space we delegated to you, we will quickly
delegate additional address space after a review of the assignment
information in the RIPE database. The size of the next delegation will
depend on your rate of assignments and estimates of future needs.
In order to further aid you in getting familiar to registry
procedures, the RIPE NCC offers Local IR Training Courses (roughly 2
per month, all over Europe). It is recommended for new Local IR staff
to follow one. Attendance of the training courses (lunch included) is
free, not including travel etc.
More information on training courses can be found on our Website at
http://www.ripe.net/lir/courses/; dates of new courses
are also announced on the 'local-ir' mailinglist.
If you have any further questions about the formal arrangements and
billing, please do not hesitate to contact .
Please contact whenever something needs to be
changed to your registry data.
All technical and registry questions are handled by .
Kind regards,
Mandy Jonkers
RIPE NCC
---
Larry Vaden
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 15:13:35 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:13:35 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5
Message-ID: <01BC87BB.4C071D20@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 9:17 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear
@ > legal authority.
@
@ I thought that we were looking for what should be, if so this is not
@ relevant - if what we want to do is complain about the past it may be time
@ to create a list that is interested in the actual issue at hand
@
Those that do not study the past are doomed to relive it.
Also, as the U.S. Government reviews the past activities
it is important to understand what really was happening.
In the case of IP addresses, the U.S. Government has been
fooled into thinking that they do not need to regulate the
allocations, but instead can review the allocations after
the fact and see that everything is wonderful.
Unfortunately, they were not told that the Internet leaders
have this way of sweeping the past under the rug and
declaring everything to be wonderful. This does not wash
when businesses have lost money and have been damaged.
As businesses bring that to the attention of the U.S.
Government, the elected officials will want to know who
was involved in these activities and what went on. Via
that information, they will be able to determine whether
any laws have been violated or whether people's rights
have been compromised.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Jul 3 15:42:53 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:42:53 -0400
Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 CDT."
<3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net>
References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net>
<3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <199707031942.PAA20364@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 CDT, Larry Vaden said:
> May I offer in rebuttal the following excerpt from the full email from
> RIPE, which is included below the excerpt for integrity purposes:
>
> "Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of
> address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this
> amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range
> of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit
> provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from
> this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your
> Assignment window is 0."
All fine and dandy. I must be dense, I didn't see where that big long
quote had anything to do with your claim that InterNIC's policies were
discriminatory. All it proved was that RIPE gave you a /19. In fact,
they gave you a /19 under the condition that you can't *USE* it without
their prior permission.
Anyhow, you're citing RIPE's policy regarding *registries* in support of
your claim regarding InterNIC's policy regarding address allocation to
startup ISPs. I remember learning back in grade school that citing
Teacher Jones' grading of Billy's math homework didn't do much good when
you are complaining about Teacher Smith's grading of your English paper....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 16:23:26 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:23:26 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
In-Reply-To: <01BC87B7.D34969E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703152326.00739e7c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
I don't know where your confusion is Jim, maybe it has to do with those
"root servers" you run, or maybe your net.conspiracy paranoia...
ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the
IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI.
IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always;
once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s)
for those IPs will follow.
Stephen
At 13:48 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
>Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
>
>What about the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ?
From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 16:32:51 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:32:51 -0700
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970703113310.00c4c808@priori.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com>
<33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703133251.00d426f0@priori.net>
At 11:33 AM 7/3/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote:
>At 01:46 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
>>>Domain Names; Notice
>>>
>>
>>Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names;
>>it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP
>>address allocation polices in [greater] North America.
>
>Leave poor Rudy alone, he's not very bright, he has only been out of law
>school a short time, and has no comprehension of netiquette. Not bad for
>the legal counsel of an "ISP Trade Association" eh?
>
>For more shining examples http://www.usipa.org
I would like o state for the record that I have no knowledge of Mr. Geist's
intelligence except as based upon his public postings to mailing lists, as
well as the USIPA web page. Any inference I have made has been based on
that, and anyone who would like to make their own decision, with the same
information as I had, should read what he has written. I believe that
these postings show a lack of understanding of the Internet community as
well as Internet law, but please draw your own conclusions.
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 16:42:26 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:42:26 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
Message-ID: <01BC87C7.B5EBC360@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 3:23 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote:
@
@ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the
@ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI.
@
So, the IANA makes all the decisions...
@ IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always;
@ once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s)
@ for those IPs will follow.
@
Again, the IANA makes all of the decisions...
I suggest people wait until the IANA (Jon Postel) makes these
decisions. This will save people time, energy and money.
There is no need to repeat the domain name fiasco in the
IP address arena. Let's not give people the impression that
they have any decision making power, when they do not.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 17:02:13 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 16:02:13 -0500
Subject: v? addresses
Message-ID: <01BC87CA.79753800@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:08 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > The ARIN people claimed that they will not have
@ > anything to do with IPv6 addresses.
@
@ this arin person has not made that claim
@ I fully expect that when the rules for allocating v6 addresses have
@ been defined and adopted (by the ipng working group) that the ip
@ registeries will allocate ipv6 addresses when they are requested to
@ do so.
@
Maybe the ISPs that are knocking on ARIN's door
for IPv4 addresses should be sold IPv6 addresses.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 17:29:22 1997
From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 16:29:22 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
In-Reply-To: <01BC87C7.B5EBC360@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703162922.0070231c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
At 15:42 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
>@ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the
>@ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI.
>So, the IANA makes all the decisions...
No, the IANA makes the root delegations. "All" is a bit naive, even for you.
>@ IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always;
>@ once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s)
>@ for those IPs will follow.
>@
>Again, the IANA makes all of the decisions...
Again, no.
The IANA determines who gets root delegations. Those organizations (RIPE,
APNIC, InterNIC/NSI, ARIN, etc) then allocate to other organizations per
current policy (as determined by RFC and/or membership vote).
>I suggest people wait until the IANA (Jon Postel) makes these
>decisions. This will save people time, energy and money.
>There is no need to repeat the domain name fiasco in the
>IP address arena. Let's not give people the impression that
>they have any decision making power, when they do not.
Jim, please go back to your eDNS/IPv8 fantasy land and leave those of us
trying to do productive work alone.
Stephen
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 17:41:24 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 16:41:24 -0500
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
Message-ID: <01BC87CF.F2740100@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 03, 1997 4:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote:
@ At 15:42 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote:
@ >@ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the
@ >@ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI.
@
Many organizations have to use .ARPA.
ARIN is a private company being formed
around some Network Solutions, Inc.
people.
Why would ARIN be handling the .ARPA
Top Level Domain ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 20:36:31 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 19:36:31 -0500
Subject: Average utilization of Class B's 1.5% in Japan per IETF
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703193631.00dc656c@texoma.net>
Per ,
Dead space in the /8 space
Fifty-six /8 prefixes are currently allocated and approximately 18% of the
v4 space has been recovered. There are more addresses in the free pool than
18 months ago.
In the /8 starting with 192, the recovery process found that most contact
information had email addresses that bounced when an attempt to contact was
made. In this space there exist truly legacy numbers used for local
addressable spaces long before the idea of private address space came into
prominence.
JP-NIC has done a study of class B utilization with 464 class B networks in
Japan. Of the 770 technical administrators listed as contacts the survey
had answers from 246. The distribution of the number of hosts indicated
about 1,000 hosts per class B license.
The survey found an amazing case where the designated contact was deceased
and the company holding the Class B license was out of business. Still, the
addresses were being routed. When the investigators went to the registry to
get the information updated they were reminded that they weren't the owners
of the record and that only the last contact of record could change the
entry.
submitted by pagans at texoma.net
---
Larry Vaden
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 21:07:52 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 02:07:52 +0100
Subject: Class A ARIN Clones
References: <01BC87AF.4DB70D80@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33BC4CE8.4595@ix.netcom.com>
Jim and all,
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote:
>
> @
> @ >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
> @ >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
> @
> @ I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup,
> @ it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people
> @ who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen
> @ B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block.
> @
>
> Maybe companies with /8s ("Class A's") should be
> encouraged to become registries and lease out
> some of their space, just like ARIN. As long as new
> private companies like ARIN are going to be getting
> into this business, there is no reason that existing
> companies can not participate.
I agree. There is no LOGICAL reason why not!
>
> John Curran of BBN is on the proposed Board of
> ARIN. Maybe he can comment
> on whether BBN would be willing to allow allocations
> to be made from their stock-pile of addresses. Yes,
> routing may have to be adjusted but there could be
> other benefits.
Yes, "Other bennifits indeed". Maybe a little
snoop and poop is in order here for BBN, hummmm? >;)
>
> Holding 3 /8s is over 1% of the total IPv4 address space
> and a higher percentage of the usable space. The
> U.S. Government via the Department of Commerce
> and the Federal Trade Commission will eventually
> have to determine whether these sorts of allocations
> give companies an unfair advantage in the market
> place.
I will be sure that this info gets to the "Right
people" at Commerce and Trade. Not to worry... >;)
>
> That can only happen AFTER companies determine
> their costs of renumbering and the costs of obtaining
> allocations. Rather than have regulation BEFORE the
> fact people have campaigned for review after the fact.
> Companies have to add their costs of participating in
> these forums into those costs.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 21:03:24 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 02:03:24 +0100
Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative
Procedure Act
References: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <33BC4BDC.36@ix.netcom.com>
Paul,
Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
>
> >
> >Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
> >Domain Names; Notice
> >
>
> Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names;
> it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP
> address allocation polices in [greater] North America.
Hummmm? Here we go again! IP's have no relevance to Domain names
eah? Please Paul, seems that you are mistaken hereI believe..... >;)
>
> - paul
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 20:52:47 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 01:52:47 +0100
Subject: /20's for the needy
References: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970703112821.00c322d0@priori.net>
Message-ID: <33BC495F.6E2E@ix.netcom.com>
Justin,
Justin W. Newton wrote:
>
> At 10:07 AM 7/3/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> >If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising"
> >changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a
> >future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the
> >lead time for installing circuits from most LECs.
>
> 60-90 days is more in line with long haul providers though.
>
> (Yes, you can get it done in 30, maybe, but it usually takes longer).
I agree with you on this one. That is why I suggested 60 days.
>
> *********************************************************
> Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
> Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> *********************************************************
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Jul 4 11:11:10 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 11:11:10 -0400
Subject: Continental Aggregation
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970704111110.00705968@lint.cisco.com>
[naipr added, pagan elided]
[re: geographic address allocation v. topological allocation]
At 10:12 AM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>Your statement applies mostly to transborder long lines and is
>less applivable the further away from the border you go.
>
I'd tend to disagree. There are plenty of cases of organizations
which are geographically located in one place while their connectivity
to the net is located somewhere else altogether.
In any event, geographic-based IP address allocation doesn't work
within the scope of CIDR aggregation.
- paul
From randy at PSG.COM Fri Jul 4 11:35:00 1997
From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 97 08:35 PDT
Subject: Continental Aggregation
References:
<3.0.1.32.19970704111110.00705968@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID:
> There are plenty of cases of organizations which are geographically
> located in one place while their connectivity to the net is located
> somewhere else altogether.
This year it is getting even more serious. We are seeing the countries who
had long-hauled to the States establishing more local backbones.
> In any event, geographic-based IP address allocation doesn't work
> within the scope of CIDR aggregation.
Anyone who talks geographic knows little about the net. Even the level we
have now is painful.
E.g. I am helping Togo set up, and they will likely connect to the US with
a RIPE (or provider) allocation. This may make sense in the long run, when
there is an African backbone. Right now, it's a bit painful. And, yes,
they expect to renumber the whole country.
randy
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 4 13:34:38 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:34:38 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
Message-ID: <01BC8876.A419BD40@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 04, 1997 7:38 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ John sez:
@
@ InterNIC's IP allocation policies deny routable blocks to
@ diversely homed ISPs unless they show prior "efficient"
@ usage of 32 Class Cs.
@ --
@
@ and how does this type of help figure out what
@ to do? how about positive statement of what should be?
@
@ Scott
@
@
Again...
1. Allocate /18s to make sure that you get large blocks
back if an organization fails.
2. Make the application TOTALLY OBJECTIVE and have
clerks handle the processing (not geeks).
3. Charge some fee to pay people for their time and energy
and to discourage 14 year olds from forging applications.
4. Make both the delegate and the two (minimum) upstream
providers certify that more specific routes will not be
advertised from the block.
5. Require that upstream providers and the delegates register
annual renewal applications to avoid having these blocks
falling in the cracks and changing hands, etc.
============
Here is a short form 1040/18 EZ that the U.S. Government
could be using to allocate /18 CIDR Blocks.
@@@@@@@@@ EXAMPLE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
1. Name, address, and State of Incorporation.
(Include copy of the Certificate of Incorporation)
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
2. Previously allocated blocks that will be returned 60 days
after the new allocation is activated. (if any)
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
3. Contact information on the TWO service providers that have
agreed to advertise your allocation. Please attach
standard routing affidavits from each provider.
1. ________________________________
2. ________________________________
NOTE: Each provider must verify that at least
1.544 Mbps of bandwidth is allocated 24 hours
per day on each link.
4. Business References:
1._____________________________
2._____________________________
3._____________________________
3. Date Submitted and signed by an officer of the company
______________________________________
Please submit the above information along with a $500
application fee drawn on a U.S. bank. Please allow
at least 5 days for processing from the date received.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 08:33:11 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:33:11 +0100
Subject: Some other principals
References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> <3.0.2.32.19970704030350.00d57c24@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33BCED87.4CEB@ix.netcom.com>
Lary and all,
Here are some other principals for consideration...
Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up
in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may
be so bold?
1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership
and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by
them,
to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the
Membership and the Internet user community.
2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one
vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet
user community so choses at any time upon request of any member
or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure
that those board members have the support of the majority of
all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed.
3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are
also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet
exists as a community, for which those Board members and at
large members are deemed responsible too. And that that
responsibility
be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible,
that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and
published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users.
4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other
sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged
to monitor or participate.
5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct
desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced
in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed
on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses.
Larry Vaden wrote:
>
> At 02:12 AM 7/4/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Larry,
> >
> > Hay guy! Where is my name on that list?
>
> Right here:
>
> andrew at texoma.net
> avila at texoma.net
> veeck at texoma.net
> editor at txlaw.com
> glo at texoma.net
> wshirley at ix.netcom.com
> wsmc at smccollough.com
> vaden at texoma.net
> scott_g at proteuscorp.com
> stagnerd at texoma.net
> corley at texoma.net
>
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>
> Regarding your other note, please post any principles you wish to the list.
>
> We appreciate your support.
>
> Have a happy 4th of July,
>
> Larry
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jul 4 14:49:26 1997
From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:49:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Some other principals
Message-ID: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu>
well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd
suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to
be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones.
----
Lary and all,
Here are some other principals for consideration...
Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up
in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may
be so bold?
1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership
and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by
them,
to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the
Membership and the Internet user community.
2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one
vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet
user community so choses at any time upon request of any member
or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure
that those board members have the support of the majority of
all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed.
3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are
also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet
exists as a community, for which those Board members and at
large members are deemed responsible too. And that that
responsibility
be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible,
that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and
published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users.
4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other
sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged
to monitor or participate.
5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct
desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced
in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed
on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses.
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 08:53:12 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:53:12 +0100
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
References: <199707041635.MAA12871@newdev.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.19970704130017.00b04e68@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33BCF238.579@ix.netcom.com>
Larry,
Larry Vaden wrote:
>
> At 10:05 AM 7/4/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 1/ how can you tell a pipedream from a real ISP?
> >
> >Real startup ISPs are too damn busy working their butts off at sales,
> >installation, and infrastructure to spend half their lives on mailing
> >lists.
> >
> >randy
>
> Purchasing department staff of ISPs covered by the regional monopolies of
> APNIC and RIPE submit a purchase order to APNIC or RIPE for membership and
> obtain a /19.
>
> With InterNIC, it is quite a different matter and that's why this
> discussion is going on.
How true.
>
> Please list the reason(s) why InterNIC shouldn't adopt the RIPE policy when
> the doors open Monday and let ARIN work on the longer term solution.
Good idea larry!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 09:01:57 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 14:01:57 +0100
Subject: Some other principals
References: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <33BCF444.69BA@ix.netcom.com>
Scott,
This was posted on pegan and napir originaly. I just changed the
thread is all. Sorry if it confused you, Scott. I don't see any
deversion here at all. Please review back on the original thread. >;)
Scott Bradner wrote:
>
> well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd
> suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to
> be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones.
>
> ----
>
> Lary and all,
>
> Here are some other principals for consideration...
>
> Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up
> in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may
> be so bold?
>
> 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership
> and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by
> them,
> to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the
> Membership and the Internet user community.
>
> 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one
> vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet
> user community so choses at any time upon request of any member
> or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure
> that those board members have the support of the majority of
> all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed.
>
> 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are
> also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet
> exists as a community, for which those Board members and at
> large members are deemed responsible too. And that that
> responsibility
> be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible,
> that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and
> published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users.
>
> 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other
> sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged
> to monitor or participate.
>
> 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct
> desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced
> in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed
> on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses.
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From justin at priori.net Fri Jul 4 12:48:40 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 09:48:40 -0700
Subject: Mr. Geist
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970704094840.0070d1fc@kurgan.hilander.com>
Hi all,
I would like to apologize to the list, as well as to Mr. Geist for the
disparaging comments I made about him. This list is here to solve a
problem, and ad hominem attacks are not the solution to anything. I hope
that the list will forgive my transgression.
*********************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:25:29 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:25:29 +0100
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
References: <199707041905.PAA29399@shell.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <33BD07D9.11AA@ix.netcom.com>
Ken and all
Ken Leland wrote:
>
> Randy wrote:
>
> > Ken Leland wrote:
> > > Geez Randy, you have not been, exactly, shy with your responses on
> > > numerous mailing lists over the years.
>
> > > {part about continual condescention getting old elided. }
>
> >
> > AFTER I made a very successful ISP and cashed in on it.
> >
> > Been there. Done that. Have the track record.
> >
>
> I'll buy that but why all the condescention? A track record is
> clearly a key thing, indeed the main thing, but there is
> more to leadership than track record alone and you well know it.
Of course there is, and Randy does know this, or should. If he
doesn't I would be greatly suprised. But maybe this is an overiding
factor in his mine? I don't know. Maybe her could enlighten us all?
>
> Back on the technical issue, my understanding is that I need <=205
> space if I want to route (for the purpose of reliable multi-homing),
> say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24). Of course I'm assuming
> straight forward routing not special, unavailable, tunnel arrangements
> with my upstreams or vixie-style application layer rewrites.
>
> Is this an accurate assessment on my part, given whats been publically
> announced by Sprint and others?
I think so! It has been published many times. SO I do not know how
anyone could think otherwise, unless there is an alterior motive in play
here. Which it is beginning to sound like...
> This given the difficulty getting
> old space from my upstreams is what's got me scrambling lately.
> I can sell dedicated T1 service (finally! after multihoming, getting a T3
> *and* establishing a local track record) and am doing so with passion.
> I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential
> unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting
> them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months.
>
> I don't really think this is too good for anyone, especially given
> my announcements are up to 5 and climbing. With the proposal to
> allow a /19 for 25 percent or more utilized, multi-homed, established,
> ISP's when it results in significant route anouncement reduction - I
> think we would all win, including the net, am I wrong?
Nope you are not wrong.
>
> If my postings are indicative, to you, of an idle time waster, then
> indeed I will work harder, read more and post less as I, also, tire of a
> not particularly high s/n and not the highest level of technical
> discussion of the points as well.
Seems like a control political game is afoot here. Why? I do not
know.
>
> Ken Leland
> Monmouth Internet
regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:32:33 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:32:33 +0100
Subject: NSI submits IPO
Message-ID: <33BD0981.1CF4@ix.netcom.com>
All,
Here is a post I got just today. Intresting!
Subject:
NSI files for IPO
Date:
Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:17:03 -0800
From:
Ellen Rony
To:
DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Yesterday, NSI filed plans with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for
an initial public offering.
Details are not yet posted on The Associated Press
announcement did not say how many shares will be sold or the initial
share
price but suggested that the public offering could be worth as much as
$35
million.
Ellen Rony
Director, Alexander Works
21 Juno Road * Tiburon, CA * 94920
Phone: 415/435-5010
Fax: 415/435-5010
Email: erony at marin.k12.ca.us
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:41:02 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:41:02 +0100
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
References:
<199707041905.PAA29399@shell.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <33BD0B7E.7275@ix.netcom.com>
Randy and all,
Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > my understanding is that I need <=205 space if I want to route (for the
> > purpose of reliable multi-homing), say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24).
>
> Truth is, I am not sure. Sprint is not alone in filtering, and filtering
> policies are not public. My memory is a safe border is nearer 204. But
> don't trust me on that one.
Yes, it is a real shame that filtering policies are not standerdized
as part of the governace situation. They should be IMHO. But that is
another story all together, or should I say THREAD? >;) Well, anyway,
wherever the border is with spicific carriers, there needs to be some
guidlines on setting of these policies.
>
> > I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential
> > unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting
> > them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months.
>
> Well, a set of customers is renumbering out of an old upstream's 205/20
> now. One helps them, phases it, ... It's just life.
It is also not necessary if planning and good policies are in place,
and inforced. I know, I have been there and done that.
>
> My experience, for what it's worth, is that this is a minor part of what
> it takes in the ISP business. And it is soooo much easier and much more
> deadly to blow the big ones (cash, management, sales, tech clue, ...),
> especially these days.
Good point. I would make a proviso here however. That being that
if there are to be good policies that could severly limit renumbering
in MOST cases, than it benifits everyone.
>
> randy
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:46:08 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:46:08 +0100
Subject: Some other principals
References: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <33BD0CB0.5289@ix.netcom.com>
Scott,
New THREAD name,but not a new topic as I said befor in my previous
response to your comments. >;) Please read the archives for your
edification. >;)
Scott Bradner wrote:
>
> well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd
> suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to
> be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones.
>
> ----
>
> Lary and all,
>
> Here are some other principals for consideration...
>
> Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up
> in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may
> be so bold?
>
> 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership
> and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by
> them,
> to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the
> Membership and the Internet user community.
>
> 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one
> vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet
> user community so choses at any time upon request of any member
> or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure
> that those board members have the support of the majority of
> all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed.
>
> 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are
> also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet
> exists as a community, for which those Board members and at
> large members are deemed responsible too. And that that
> responsibility
> be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible,
> that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and
> published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users.
>
> 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other
> sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged
> to monitor or participate.
>
> 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct
> desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced
> in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed
> on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses.
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 11:04:00 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 16:04:00 +0100
Subject: /20's for the needy
References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com>
Message-ID: <33BD10E0.6BC9@ix.netcom.com>
Stephen,
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> At 20:23 02-07-97 +0100, you wrote:
> >Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> >> . Must have an ASN
>
> >1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of
> >qualification.
>
> I wanted to separate the ASN and PI block application processes, since it's
> a totally separate function and has its own list of requirements. I'd hate
> to slip up and give a PI block to someone who never got an ASN.
I understand. But my suggestion doesn't preclude this at all. In
fact
it is a hand and glove arrangment.
>
> >> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already
>
> >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
> >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
>
> I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup,
> it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people
> who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen
> B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block.
Yes, but your suggestion did not "CLEARLY" state this which leaves
it to interpretation. I was trying to clarify it a bit. In addition
there is not spicific provision within RFC2050 for "New ISP's", hence
my wording.
>
> >> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050
>
> >3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient
> > use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on
> > projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050.
>
> Again, what does is mean, and what is the intended effect?
This means that, as I have said several times now, the RFC2050 makes
NO spicific provision for "NEW ISP's" hence my wording to be more
spicific as to your refrence "under RFC2050". Otherwise much is
left to interpratation. This makes it unclear and subject to a whim
interpratation. RFC1918 also needs to be amended to this effect,
or ARIN's policies in respect to RFC2050 and RFC1918 should be more
spicific along these lines.
>
> >> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days
>
> >4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days
>
> If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising"
> changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a
> future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the
> lead time for installing circuits from most LECs.
BUt it usually takes longer than 30 days.
>
> Stephen
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 11:06:52 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 16:06:52 +0100
Subject: Mr. Geist
References: <3.0.2.32.19970704094840.0070d1fc@kurgan.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <33BD118C.51DD@ix.netcom.com>
Justin and all,
No problem what so ever. You were just defending your creditability
form a viserol attack. Anyone can understand that. I submit
that MR Geist discontinue perposing legal attacks on this list for
the benifit of all, if I may be so bold to suggest....?
Justin W. Newton wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I would like to apologize to the list, as well as to Mr. Geist for the
> disparaging comments I made about him. This list is here to solve a
> problem, and ad hominem attacks are not the solution to anything. I hope
> that the list will forgive my transgression.
>
> *********************************************************
> Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
> Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> *********************************************************
Regards
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 13:49:31 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 18:49:31 +0100
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
References: <3.0.32.19970704152348.00bda318@liveoak.priori.net> <3.0.3.32.19970704184611.0113263c@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33BD37AB.5AC7@ix.netcom.com>
Larry,
Larry Vaden wrote:
>
> Eric, where did you read "talk soft, carry a big stick?"
>
> That MIGHT cause them to move the IP registry function out to ARIN post
> haste in order to put a stop loss on NSI's liabilities.
>
> But unless small IPSs join in droves, the 300 +/- forecasted membership of
> ARIN will be highly skewed towards the "haves" vs. the "have nots".
You may be right here. I do believe that many smaller ISP's will
joine however.
>
> By the way, NSI has an IPO in process.
Yes I posted the announcment on ARIN's list originaly earlier today.
>
> ldv `[8-))
>
> At 06:32 PM 7/4/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >Robert L. Shearing wrote:
> >>
> >> >> ISPs who wish to multi-home should be allowed to decide for themselves
> >> >> what technique they wish to use, absent some compelling reason to the
> >> >> contrary.
> >> >
> >> >I missed that part of the US Constitution. And compelling seems to be in
> >> >the eye of the beholder.
> >> >
> >> It has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. It's just a general
> >> deregulatory/free enterprise philosophy that in this context says: "Don't
> >> restrict a company's ability to make its own decisions unless there's a
> >> compelling reason to do so." I think this philosophy is consistent with
> >> the best traditions of the Internet.
> >>
> >> The only compelling reason I can think of to block the allocation of the
> >> /19s in question would be if failing to do so would make a tangible
> >> difference in the useful lifetime of the remaining IPv4 address space. And
> >> I don't believe that to be the case.
> >> *********************************************************
> >> Robert L. Shearing voice: +1-415-482-2840
> >> President/CEO fax: +1-415-482-2844
> >> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
> >>
> >> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> >> *********************************************************
> >Randy raises an interesting point. He correctly points out that the
> >Constitution generally does not protect individuals from private
> >action. That is why several folk have suggested that government
> >regulation is preferable to private--you get the guarantees of due
> >process, free speech, open records and democratic processes.
> >
> >However, the "compelling reason" test DOES come into play in several
> >contexts relating to private entities, most notably in the field of
> >federal anti-trust law. Anti-competitive arrangements are usually
> >illegal unless there is a compelling justification for them to exist.
> >It should be noted that many states, on the other hand, do not permit
> >anti-competitive arrangements even if there are "compelling reasons" for
> >them. Some have suggested that the anti-trust laws apply to NSI's PI
> >allocation criteria (note that I continue to call them NSI's since NSI
> >is the entity using those standards no matter who actually authored or
> >approved them).
> >
> >Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> >Internet Texoma, Inc.
> >The ISP which DIDN'T
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 4 20:52:40 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 19:52:40 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970704195240.011349dc@texoma.net>
At 06:44 PM 7/4/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> And hence, in that they are under federal jurisdiction, your above
>argument is rendered moot.
First, let me say that Eric is off to receive a Lady Liberty Award for
providing on the job training to Texas Attorney General Morales regarding
the Electronic Privacy Communications Act. TX AG Morales issued an
improper subpoena which violated ECPA when he sought to obtain email
transactions for a ROT (Republic of Texas) member who had an account at
Internet Texoma. I don't speak for him and I'm not a lawyer, just a
businessman who founded an ISP.
To your point, maybe right, maybe wrong - let's postulate what "compelling
reasons" a federal judge might find to allow NSI to continue the
anti-competitive, anti-trust, monopolistic actions.
1. Randy says the routers will fall over and destroy the Internet.
----- Rebuttal: Tony Bates' CIDR report indicates there is plenty of
wasted space in the router tables to accommodate those seeking globally
routable /19 CIDR blocks.
2. We're out of IPv4 space.
----- Rebuttal: See IETF (Bill Manning's ?) remarks which put Class B
utilization at 1.5% in Japan; ad nauseam.
Jump in here and add the third thru nth "compelling reason(s)" acceptable
to a federal judge.
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 4 22:13:02 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 21:13:02 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.3.32.19970704195240.011349dc@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970704211302.01251c94@texoma.net>
At 09:10 PM 7/4/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Lordy larry.....give us a break....please..... you are over simplifying on
>all of your assertions.....
Randy was the one who said routers would fall over, yet routers haven't
fallen over because of the abuse evident in Tony Bates' CIDR report.
Traded one for one, I don't see a problem.
Mr. Bates states "This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to
aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could
make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the
Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the
inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger
reduction should be possible."
Today's data indicates 2,791 router slots could be made available to
Harvard, priori.net, Internet Texoma, et al.
Here's today's data as published at
:
--- 04Jul97 ---
ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description
AS174 1148 819 329 28.7% Performance Systems International
AS2493 766 460 306 39.9% i*internet
AS3602 556 309 247 44.4% Sprint Canada Inc.
AS2048 251 120 131 52.2% LANET-1
AS1691 301 172 129 42.9% BCTEL
AS6541 186 59 127 68.3% GTE Intelligent Network Services
AS3804 248 135 113 45.6% Bell Solutions
AS1 1032 922 110 10.7% BBNPLANET
AS1967 186 82 104 55.9% Middle East Technical University
AS839 125 26 99 79.2% North West Territories Regional N
AS701 972 875 97 10.0% Alternet
AS7195 121 43 78 64.5% INTERRED
AS816 318 248 70 22.0% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4)
AS2704 256 186 70 27.3% HOOKUP-NET-A
AS4293 108 44 64 59.3% IMCI
AS549 250 189 61 24.4% ONet Backbone
AS5668 72 13 59 81.9% Century Telephone Inc.
AS4648 190 134 56 29.5% NZIX 2
AS3561 942 890 52 5.5% MCI
AS6181 53 4 49 92.5% FUSE-NET
AS3799 74 26 48 64.9% IDS
AS97 175 128 47 26.9% JvNCnet
AS813 208 161 47 22.6% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS1)
AS719 565 518 47 8.3% LANLINK autonomous system
AS4454 74 27 47 63.5% TNET-AS
AS4763 100 56 44 44.0% Telstra New Zealand
AS2711 98 57 41 41.8% SUNBELT-AS
AS271 98 57 41 41.8% BCnet Backbone
AS3749 75 35 40 53.3% TECNET
AS225 63 25 38 60.3% VIRGINIA-AS
----
2791
>lets revisit these issues next month ....OK?
Firms are being damaged this month by the status quo.
>> Jump in here and add the third thru nth "compelling reason(s)" acceptable
>> to a federal judge.
Go ahead, Gordon. I'm waiting on your "compelling reason(s)".
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Jul 5 08:48:58 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 08:48:58 -0400
Subject: Continental Aggregation
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970705084858.006c5364@lint.cisco.com>
At 12:40 PM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>Which begs the question, will IPV4's inherent allocaiton and
>resource shortage problems be fixed before it's replaced.
>
Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing
v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard
(or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists).
- paul
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 04:48:43 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 09:48:43 +0100
Subject: Continental Aggregation
References: <3.0.1.32.19970705084858.006c5364@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <33BE0A6B.29DE@ix.netcom.com>
Paul and all,
Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> At 12:40 PM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> >
> >Which begs the question, will IPV4's inherent allocaiton and
> >resource shortage problems be fixed before it's replaced.
> >
>
> Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing
> v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard
> (or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists).
Well I guess I look at the IPV6 situation as a augment to
Ipv4 not a replacment initialy. Than later a phase over to
all ipv6. With this approach, you DO improve the situation
quickly for the short haul, and also provide a path for a more
long term fix.
Putting the way you did, I have to agree, you really just
add to the possibility of agravating the problem at least.
But as I invision Ipv6 form an implimentation standpoint,
you reduce or eliminate a IP problem and a political one
in one step. And any time I can kill two birds with one
stone, it becomes a much better senerio in my mind.
>
> - paul
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 5 16:05:44 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:05:44 -0500
Subject: Reviewing After...as Opposed to Regulating Before
Message-ID: <01BC8954.EA1C1B60@webster.unety.net>
On Saturday, July 05, 1997 2:32 PM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at psg.com] wrote:
@ > There are too many government agencies looking to get their hands on this
@ > sort of thing for ARIN to do anything but its very best.
@
@ Onbe hopes ARIN will do its best because the folk involved have a sense of
@ stewardship and a real concern for the industry. Because it seems that the
@ government has wisely opted out.
@
The government has wisely (?) decided to "review" AFTER the
fact as opposed to regulate BEFORE the fact.
They could not regulate that which they did not understand.
Also, it does not appear that they actually "decided". They
just failed to make decisions and clearly NSI is moving forward [1].
They will be able to review standard business practices and
the various laws that have helped to guide society for years.
There is already plenty to review and each day brings more
legacy, history, etc. The government agencies that are mandated
by the people to review government contracts, anti-trust, and
other issues are still in place and did not disappear with the
so-called approval of ARIN.
[1] ============
Recent Events in Internet History...
June 24, 1997
NSF Approves ARIN
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/pr9746.htm
http://www.netsol.com/announcements/62798_arin.html
June 26, 1997
Domain Registrations and IP Address Allocations Separate
New Building Dedicated in Virginia for 150 NSI Employees
http://www.netsol.com/announcements/62798_move.html
June 30, 1997
The U.S. Goverment asks the public to comment on two year
old issues involving the registration of Internet Domain Names
rather than the current issues of why some companies are not
allowed into the industry and allowed to compete with NSI and
ARIN and why the U.S. Government blocks that entry.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5press.htm
July 3, 1997
Network Solutions, Inc. Files for IPO with the SEC
July 4, 1997
Landing on Mars
Mars allocated S4.G7 in the IPv8 Address Space
and assigned the Top Level Domain .MARS
A "dig" of .MARS should yield an A RR of 0.255.4.7
to allow IPv8 systems to discover which Galaxy
and Stargate MARS uses.
:-)
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 13:24:18 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 18:24:18 +0100
Subject: BTW
References: <3.0.3.32.19970705181505.00ca380c@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33BE8342.1122@ix.netcom.com>
Jim,
Jim Fleming (by way of Larry Vaden ) wrote:
>
> By the way...
>
> I wonder if any IP addresses will be needed for this project...?
>
> http://www.saic.com/publications/news/jun97/news06-02b-97.html
Yea, you know, I wonder if they are going to have any trouble
getting them? Hummmm? :)~ (Tounge in cheek)...
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 16:44:04 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 21:44:04 +0100
Subject: Intresting news posts on NSI/ARNI
Message-ID: <33BEB214.2A15@ix.netcom.com>
All,
Intresting news post.
The Internet Files: news on the latest Internet standards and
struggles
Fallout from the Supreme Court's CDA ruling. NSF sets up
non-profit organization to manage IP numbers. (4 stories
posted)
http://www.sun.com/sunworldonline/swol-07-1997/swol-07-if.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Jul 6 17:36:56 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 16:36:56 -0500
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #0
Message-ID: <01BC8A2A.D27D0740@webster.unety.net>
On Sunday, July 06, 1997 9:51 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@
@ > Honestly, it depends on how much "old blood" there is on the board before I
@ would assume what you assume.
@
@ Larry - on the face of it such a principle is absurd, the arin board is
@ bound by the laws just like anyone else - the arin lawyers are paid
@ to be sure that the laws are followed, no "principle" is needed to
@ make this true.
@
Scott,
You speak of ARIN as if it exists. Can you give
people an update on the status ?
Who is paying the "ARIN lawyers" ?
Have people joined ARIN already ?
How are the IP address "intellectual assets" being handled ?
Can you speak to how they are currently valued
on the books of NSI and how they will be transferred
to ARIN ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jul 6 12:52:29 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 17:52:29 +0100
Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #0
References: <01BC8A2A.D27D0740@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33BFCD4D.2BD5@ix.netcom.com>
Jim,
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 06, 1997 9:51 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
> @
> @ > Honestly, it depends on how much "old blood" there is on the board before I
> @ would assume what you assume.
> @
> @ Larry - on the face of it such a principle is absurd, the arin board is
> @ bound by the laws just like anyone else - the arin lawyers are paid
> @ to be sure that the laws are followed, no "principle" is needed to
> @ make this true.
> @
>
> Scott,
>
> You speak of ARIN as if it exists. Can you give
> people an update on the status ?
>
> Who is paying the "ARIN lawyers" ?
>
> Have people joined ARIN already ?
>
> How are the IP address "intellectual assets" being handled ?
> Can you speak to how they are currently valued
> on the books of NSI and how they will be transferred
> to ARIN ?
All good questions. NSI's IPO filing sure doesn't show any of this in
any detail. Inquiring minds want to know! Well ARIN Board members?
What is the poop on these questions? I know I am not going to hold
my breath waiting on an answer though.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From dhudes at graphnet.com Mon Jul 7 15:47:21 1997
From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Dana Hudes)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:47:21 -0400
Subject: Value of telephone numbers
References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
Message-ID: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>
Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers
> being
> coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce
> equipment
> that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a
> 100 MIPS
> system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the
> secondary
> market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way)
> while
> that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major
> router
> doing BGP computations?
>
> Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a
> *dedicated*
> CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count
> prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in
> that
> phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very
> expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of
> these discussions.
>
First of all, this not a new trick. The IBM NSS's aka 6611-prime aka
Milford router did this --
the route engine was also for dealing with SNMP and other system
overhead so perhaps its not
as pure as you like, but it didn't forward packets (the cards did). This
architecture is present to some extent in the commercial IBM 6611 .
It uses GateD to do its routing, the cards are "deep" cards with onboard
route tables.
Now, perhaps a Pentium Pro350 is more powerful than an old POWER2
RS/6000 but
nonetheless its available. The architecture that I understood of the
Ipsilon ISR
was that a Pentium-133 runs GateD and the forwarding engine is this ATM
switch.
Its been a year since I looked at it so my recall is fuzzy.
wwww.ipsilon.com
I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart
cards. I know it runs GateD.
Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money
and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router
than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at
around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive
business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money
that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders.
From dhudes at graphnet.com Mon Jul 7 15:59:31 1997
From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Dana Hudes)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:59:31 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com>
I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
which is not advertised in the global routing tables and that this
process be repeated quarterly. For example, I personally know of
a class B sitting unused for five years. The registrant has machines
numbered in this space behind a SOCKS firewall which
uses a /26 in PA space from their upstream. Of course the contact
has long since left the organization and the e-mail address
doesn't work.
It is in the public good to reclaim such space posthaste. Voluntary
efforts are well and good, but has anyone tried wholesale to match
advertisements to registration and find the surplus registrations?
Even on a voluntary basis, an enquiry in e-mail to the last known
contact of such organizations might turn up a few willing to relinquish.
Writing an RFC that such organizations never see won't help.
My .02
not an official position of anyone
Dana Hudes
From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Jul 7 16:01:07 1997
From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com> from "Dana Hudes" at Jul 7, 97 03:59:31 pm
Message-ID: <199707072001.AA12141@zed.isi.edu>
>
> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
> which is not advertised in the global routing tables and that this
> process be repeated quarterly.
>
> It is in the public good to reclaim such space posthaste. Voluntary
> efforts are well and good, but has anyone tried wholesale to match
> advertisements to registration and find the surplus registrations?
Yup. this is being done. Over the last 28 months we have
recovered nearly 20% of the total IP space this way. Check
the IEPG and nanog archives for more details.
--bill
From karl at MCS.NET Mon Jul 7 16:13:43 1997
From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:13:43 -0500
Subject: Value of telephone numbers
In-Reply-To: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>; from Dana Hudes on Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400
References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>
Message-ID: <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
> Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> > The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers
> > being
> > coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce
> > equipment
> > that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a
> > 100 MIPS
> > system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the
> > secondary
> > market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way)
> > while
> > that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major
> > router
> > doing BGP computations?
> >
> > Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a
> > *dedicated*
> > CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count
> > prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in
> > that
> > phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very
> > expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of
> > these discussions.
> >
>
> I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart
> cards. I know it runs GateD.
>
> Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money
> and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router
> than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at
> around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive
> business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money
> that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders.
That's funny - - the ASCEND GRF is about half the cost of a comparably-equipped
CISCO 7513.
And yes, it does have smart cards and a Pentium main processor, runs a
BSDI Unix derivitive on the host processor with GATED for routing, and can
handle 150,000 routes (3x+ today's real load).
It works too (we've tested it under VERY heavy loads; I didn't care for their
ATM cards and have heard of problems with them, but the HSSI boards work
great, and the 100BaseTX interfaces -- great for local interconnect between
backbone routers in a data center -- are fantastic).
One has to wonder why it is that CISCO can get 2X the price for less than
1/2 of the performance..... and why the industry has coddled a company which
has produced products of this type.
My beef with CISCO on this matter goes back many years. The blunt truth -
their architecture has consistently failed to take advantage of the commodity
relationships within the high-tech sector, and the Internet industry has not
only condoned that failure, but allowed their engineers and employees to
write many of the specifications which we now accept as "gospel" in the
community.
If this were any other industry, the fur would be flying. Its only a matter
of time before it flies here, and the faster we wake up to this fact and fix
it, the better off we will be.
Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND?
Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jul 7 17:21:47 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 16:21:47 -0500
Subject: Value of telephone numbers
In-Reply-To: <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
References: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>
<01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net>
<19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
<33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970707162147.00cb0390@texoma.net>
At 03:13 PM 7/7/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND?
>Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
Haven't heard the rumor, but my uunet noc folder keeps filling with
announcements that have touched just about every major city in the last 10
days.
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 7 11:34:25 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 16:34:25 +0100
Subject: Value of telephone numbers
References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
Message-ID: <33C10C81.3E97@ix.netcom.com>
Karl and all,
Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
> > Karl Denninger wrote:
> > >
> > > The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers
> > > being
> > > coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce
> > > equipment
> > > that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a
> > > 100 MIPS
> > > system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the
> > > secondary
> > > market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way)
> > > while
> > > that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major
> > > router
> > > doing BGP computations?
> > >
> > > Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a
> > > *dedicated*
> > > CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count
> > > prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in
> > > that
> > > phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very
> > > expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of
> > > these discussions.
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart
> > cards. I know it runs GateD.
> >
> > Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money
> > and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router
> > than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at
> > around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive
> > business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money
> > that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders.
>
> That's funny - - the ASCEND GRF is about half the cost of a comparably-equipped
> CISCO 7513.
>
> And yes, it does have smart cards and a Pentium main processor, runs a
> BSDI Unix derivitive on the host processor with GATED for routing, and can
> handle 150,000 routes (3x+ today's real load).
>
> It works too (we've tested it under VERY heavy loads; I didn't care for their
> ATM cards and have heard of problems with them, but the HSSI boards work
> great, and the 100BaseTX interfaces -- great for local interconnect between
> backbone routers in a data center -- are fantastic).
I agree with Karl here. I have had the same experiance with Ascend
equipment.
>
> One has to wonder why it is that CISCO can get 2X the price for less than
> 1/2 of the performance..... and why the industry has coddled a company which
> has produced products of this type.
>
> My beef with CISCO on this matter goes back many years. The blunt truth -
> their architecture has consistently failed to take advantage of the commodity
> relationships within the high-tech sector, and the Internet industry has not
> only condoned that failure, but allowed their engineers and employees to
> write many of the specifications which we now accept as "gospel" in the
> community.
>
> If this were any other industry, the fur would be flying. Its only a matter
> of time before it flies here, and the faster we wake up to this fact and fix
> it, the better off we will be.
>
> Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND?
> Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
I had heard rumors only.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
> http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
> | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 8 01:23:41 1997
From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 22:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com>
Message-ID:
> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
> which is not advertised in the global routing tables
If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
space.
And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
--karl--
From kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM Tue Jul 8 02:06:53 1997
From: kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM (Ken Leland)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 02:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Jul 7, 97 10:23:41 pm
Message-ID: <199707080606.CAA23178@shell.monmouth.com>
karl wrote:
>
>
> > I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
> > which is not advertised in the global routing tables
>
> If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> space.
>
> And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
>
Well, assorted net gurus are maintaining that the problem is both
router table space and allocated space. This seems reasonable to me since
there is actually a tradeoff between the two that is being managed.
Ken Leland
kwl at monmouth.com
From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Tue Jul 8 02:29:50 1997
From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 02:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> space.
>
> And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
given a /19 :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue Jul 8 03:11:46 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 16:11:46 +0900
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 1997 22:23:41 MST."
Message-ID: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Karl,
There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the
head to fix:
1) limitiation on address space
2) limitations of router forwarding table space
3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates.
While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of
these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on
address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it
would continue to be third in the prioritization.
Regards,
-drc
--------
>
>> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
>> which is not advertised in the global routing tables
>
>If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
>space.
>
>And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
>prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 09:48:38 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:48:38 -0500
Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ?
Message-ID: <01BC8B7B.BB2A96A0@webster.unety.net>
On Monday, July 07, 1997 8:40 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] wrote:
@ At 08:10 PM 07/07/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
@
@ >>
@ >> ARIN's charter is not to "run the net," as you seem to imply,
@ >> but rather, its charter is to provide IP address allocation and
@ >> registration services for greater North America. Also, if you'd
@ >> bother to do your homework, you would also realize that ARIN is
@ >> following a model which has been in place in Europe (RIPE) and
@ >> the Asian Pacific region (APNIC) for several years now, and all
@ >> indications are that this model functions remarkably well.
@ >>
@ >
@ >Paul, I need some help here. Where can I find ARIN's charter?
@ >
@
@ Ah, you are looking for a literal charter document, which doesn't
@ exist. I meant 'charter' in the figurative sense, in that the
@ purpose of ARIN is spelled out in documents found on their
@ web site, namely:
@
@ http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html
@
@ - paul
@
@
@
According to the following, Network Solutions, Inc. (a subsidiary of SAIC)
has already incorporated ARIN. There is no mention of who the shareholders
are or the members of the Board of Directors. Also, there is no mention
of how the assets being transferred from NSI/SAIC to ARIN are being
handled.
@@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
"The Company has recently received authorization from the
NSF to shift the allocation and administration of IP addresses to
a not-for-profit organization. In support of this initiative, the Company
has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American
Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses
for North and South America and parts of Africa. The Company anticipates
that the responsibility for the allocation and administration of IP addresses
will be transferred to ARIN by the fourth quarter of 1997. The Company
has agreed with the NSF to provide financial support to ARIN through the
end of the first quarter of 1998. The Company believes that the amount of
such support will not be material to the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions
of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It
is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain.
Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The
National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another
situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for
Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies
that depend on those resources.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:02:58 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:02:58 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <01BC8B7D.BB5AE380@webster.unety.net>
On Monday, July 07, 1997 9:29 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote:
@ On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
@
@ > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
@ > space.
@ >
@ > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
@ > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
@
@ If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
@ given a /19 :)
@
@ ------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
@ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
@ Florida Digital Turnpike |
@ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
@
@
@
Rather than deprive everyone, it might be better to allocate
some set number of new allocations each year or quarter.
I suggest 3,000 /18s should be made available, with the
prior agreement that the delegate (ISP?) not advertise
more specific routes from those blocks and that proof
be supplied of at least 2 connections to the IPv4 Core
Transport Network with at a minimum of 1.544 bps on
each connection.
It would be interesting to compile a list of which ISPs
would sign up for such an allocation. Are there 3,000 ?
If 3,000 ISPs sign a petition in the U.S., then the FTC,
IRS, SEC, DOJ and Department of Commerce can work
that into their current activities. Without such proof, the
people working to prevent further allocations can claim
there is no demand.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:11:30 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:11:30 -0500
Subject: offered for discussion -- principle #0
Message-ID: <01BC8B7E.ECE67E40@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 12:31 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote:
@ At 02:10 PM 7/8/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
@ >Larry,
@ >
@ >
@ >First: pagan is about global policies, it is not a forum for defining
@ >the principle on which ARIN alone will operate.
@
@ Hi, David!
@
@ Sorry if we are intruding. We're here because of a message from Kim; I'll
@ let those folks decide if we should take it back to naipr at arin.net.
@
@ Posted-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:38:10 -0500 (CDT)
@ X-Authentication-Warning: info.netsol.com: majordom set sender to
@ owner-naipr at arin.net using -f
@ From: Kim Hubbard
@ Subject: Re: past vs future use
@ To: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
@ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
@ Cc: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net, naipr at arin.net
@ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
@ Sender: owner-naipr at netsol.com
@
@ ...
@
@ One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update
@ the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any
@ suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net.
@
@ Kim
@
@
@
@
Larry,
The decisions are made by people that do not
participate on either list. The decisions are made
in Washington, D.C. by people that do not use the
Internet.
By the time the decision makers have everything
worked out, and display their decisions on the
Internet, everything is a "done deal".
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 04:09:11 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:09:11 +0100
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
References:
Message-ID: <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com>
Jon and all,
Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> > space.
> >
> > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
>
> If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
> given a /19 :)
Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
of ARIN.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
> Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
> Florida Digital Turnpike |
> ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 04:13:38 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:13:38 +0100
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <33C1F6B2.3BEE@ix.netcom.com>
David and all,
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the
> head to fix:
>
> 1) limitiation on address space
>
> 2) limitations of router forwarding table space
>
> 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates.
>
> While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of
> these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on
> address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it
> would continue to be third in the prioritization.
I agree with your evaluation of the major problems that the registries
are getting hit over the head with and your evaluation with their
priorities.
What I DO NOT agree with is your evaluation from an InterNic/ARIN
evaluation of revocation of address space. From the tennor of the
comments
made by some Board members on this list, Revocation and sevear limiting
of allocations seems to be their priority.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> --------
> >
> >> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
> >> which is not advertised in the global routing tables
> >
> >If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> >space.
> >
> >And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> >prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:53:09 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:53:09 -0500
Subject: offered for discussion -- principle #0
Message-ID: <01BC8B84.BE51B120@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 2:05 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote:
@ Larry,
@
@ >We're here because of a message from Kim; I'll
@ >let those folks decide if we should take it back to naipr at arin.net.
@
@ I believe Kim was saying that ARIN will be using the same global
@ policies that the other registries are using and that if you want to
@ modify those policies, the appropriate place to discuss those
@ modifications would be pagan. If you want to talk about specific
@ implementation of those policies at one particular registry, you
@ should use the appropriate registry's mailing list (e.g.,
@ apnic-talk at apnic.net, naipr at arin.net, etc).
@
@ Regards,
@ -drc
@
@
Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
Is that an ARIN issue ?
A domain name issue ?
...or a policy issue ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 11:10:00 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 11:10:00 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
>as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
>priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
>than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
>providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
>This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
>the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
>of ARIN.
Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
someone stating that more address space is needed.
I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
in the top five, at least not in the near term.
I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
introduces a whole new set of problems.
Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
created a more critical problem.
If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
intricacies in the global routing system.
- paul
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 05:16:24 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 10:16:24 +0100
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <33C20568.313B@ix.netcom.com>
Paul,
Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
> >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
> >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
> >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
> >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
> >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
> >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
> >of ARIN.
>
> Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
> someone stating that more address space is needed.
Yes. And it is obviously.
>
> I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
> important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
> in the top five, at least not in the near term.
Your opinion. Not the majorities.
>
> I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
> space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
> address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
> introduces a whole new set of problems.
I agree that the "ONLY" current migration plan is to Ipv6 for
additional
space. I don't agree that it is the best solution or "ONLY POSSIBLE"
solution. Let me be clear on that point! And yes, there will be
problems. As in any migration process. So what else is new? >;)
>
> Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
> the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
> policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
> policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
> that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
> created a more critical problem.
You misunderstood my comments again, Paul, as usual. I am not saying
that allocating more address space is "THE SOLUTION" but certianly
a part of a "COMPLETE" solution. I agree that assemblance of
aggregation
is "VERY" necessary, but part of a whole solution, not a solution in and
of itself. A parallel approace seems necessary here. That is what I am
saying! GOT IT NOW PAUL! OR do I need to outline a complete plan
for you?
>
> If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
> intricacies in the global routing system.
Well I do understand it quite well thanks. I submit you need to read
my comments more carefully befor making difinitive statments that are
both out of context and misleading.
>
> - paul
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From wimsey at rtci.com Tue Jul 8 11:30:40 1997
From: wimsey at rtci.com (System Administrator)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:30:40 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <01BC8B92.5E1BD660@wimsey@rtci.com>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:03 AM, Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net]
wrote:
I myself work for a ISP in NC, we have in use over 90% of a /18, we are
multihomed a t3 connect direct to sprints backbone, and a t1 to another ISP
which is in turn connected to sprint for address space, the problem however
is the fact that we are stuck using nonportable address for sprint, should
we change providers, we get stuck with a large amount of renumbering. I
don't mind the renumbering so much, its more along the fact it takes
forever for sprint to assign us new blocks, and the fact that our blocks
are spread all over the place. I have seen plenty of complaints about the
growth of routing tables, you things like this contribute to routing table
growth. I guess the main purpose of my reply is the fact that I WOULD
definatly sign anything you would put in front of me to get a continuous
block of portable addresses.
David Wimsey
>
> Rather than deprive everyone, it might be better to allocate
> some set number of new allocations each year or quarter.
>
> I suggest 3,000 /18s should be made available, with the
> prior agreement that the delegate (ISP?) not advertise
> more specific routes from those blocks and that proof
> be supplied of at least 2 connections to the IPv4 Core
> Transport Network with at a minimum of 1.544 bps on
> each connection.
>
> It would be interesting to compile a list of which ISPs
> would sign up for such an allocation. Are there 3,000 ?
>
> If 3,000 ISPs sign a petition in the U.S., then the FTC,
> IRS, SEC, DOJ and Department of Commerce can work
> that into their current activities. Without such proof, the
> people working to prevent further allocations can claim
> there is no demand.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
>
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 11:37:27 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:37:27 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <01BC8B8A.EEA6FC80@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 3:09 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
@ Jon and all,
@
@ Jon Lewis wrote:
@ >
@ > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
@ >
@ > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
@ > > space.
@ > >
@ > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
@ > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
@ >
@ > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
@ > given a /19 :)
@
@ Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
@ as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
@ priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
@ than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
@ providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
@ This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
@ the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
@ of ARIN.
ARIN is one company of several companies. It appears
that it has been formed by Network Solutions, Inc. and SAIC
as part of the grand evolution plan they have developed in
conjunction with the National Science Foundation to dismantle
the InterNIC by March of 1998.
To place all of the responsibility for the IPv4 Core Transport
Network address space management on ARIN would not be wise.
ARIN is supposed to have a small portion of the address space.
Unfortunately, no one has ever described precisely what part
of the address space will be delegated to ARIN.
There are other organizations, with more experience, more
stability, and better customer service than ARIN who could
be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space for management.
In my opinion people and companies should be working to
cultivate those companies. We should have a dozen ARINs
in the U.S. alone.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 11:59:23 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:59:23 -0500
Subject: All Eggs in One Basket ?
Message-ID: <01BC8B8D.FF0E2D20@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:01 AM, Alec H. Peterson[SMTP:ahp at hilander.com] wrote:
@ On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 08:17:00AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
@ >
@ > Can you say 'lawyer fodder'?
@
@ Sure can, but the other options aren't great either. If ARIN is able
@ to pull off being an impartial body, then this thing might actually
@ work. If not, then it doesn't matter what the policy is, the whole
@ thing will be lawyer fodder.
@
If there are a dozen ARINs then you do not have to
place all of your eggs in one basket and watch that basket...
This is one of the reasons why there are now multiple
Root Name Server Confederations. The .ARPA Top Level
Domain is currently delegated by all of those Confederations
to Network Solutions, Inc. The Root Name Server Confederations
have to make sure that this is the consensus of the Internet
Community who the various Confederations represent.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 12:03:34 1997
From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:03:34 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>; from Paul Ferguson on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 11:10:00AM -0400
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <19970708110334.11022@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 11:10:00AM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
> >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
> >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
> >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
> >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
> >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
> >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
> >of ARIN.
>
> Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
> someone stating that more address space is needed.
>
> I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
> important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
> in the top five, at least not in the near term.
The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do
reasonable things with it.
If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who
haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization
below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A"
addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total
possible IPV4 space.
Now, on to issues that are real.....
Route table slots:
A real issue, but one which is solveable with the application of
*small* amounts of money. All existing current CISCO products, for
example, either can handle at least 128M of RAM or can easily be
upgraded to do so with one board swap.
Route CACHE entropy:
This is a real problem. The solution is to reduce ENTROPY in the
route table. Several fixes come to mind for this, all of them
politically unpalatable for the *MAJOR* ISPs (ie: Sprint flaps
enough that these fixes would render their backbone far less useful,
as it would be dampened out of existance frequently).
However, the purpose of this kind of discussion is to come up with
fixes, right? The problem areas aren't in forwarding performance
nearly so much as they are in entropy management. Entropy
management is doable in the EXISTING BGP4 code releases in
most major vendor's hardware *RIGHT NOW*.
So why is it that we focus on things like denying /19s to multi-homed ISPs,
when that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the performance and operation of
the network as a whole?
Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 12:06:05 1997
From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:06:05 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: ; from Jon Lewis on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 02:29:50AM -0400
References:
Message-ID: <19970708110605.01445@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 02:29:50AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> > space.
> >
> > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
>
> If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
> given a /19 :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
> Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
> Florida Digital Turnpike |
> ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
There is no shortage of address space.
In fact, approximately half of all possible address space is currently
"reserved" by the IANA.
If we reclaimed JUST the old Class "A" space which was being utilized at 10%
or less of allocated space (a full 80% reduction from existing guidelines)
we'd recover, I'd guess, 90% of the addresses in the range of 1. to 63 which
are currently assigned to someone.
Of course, MIT might not like it, nor PSI. Tough noogies. The rest of us
have to deal with renumbering, right? Why is it that all of a sudden
certain institutions and ISPs have precedence and don't have to renumber,
while everyone else does?
If you want a place that the DOJ *should* be looking at for evidence of
anticompetitive behavior (ala their recent look at NSI) this is precisely
where to focus the beams.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 12:16:22 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:16:22 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <01BC8B90.5EA42B20@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:10 AM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote:
@ At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
@
@ > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
@ >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
@ >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
@ >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
@ >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
@ >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
@ >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
@ >of ARIN.
@
@ Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
@ someone stating that more address space is needed.
@
@ I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
@ important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
@ in the top five, at least not in the near term.
@
I agree...
The routing problem is much more serious...
@ I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
@ space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
@ address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
@ introduces a whole new set of problems.
@
I agree...
IPv6 solved the wrong problem and introduces more problems
than it solves...
@ Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
@ the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
@ policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
@ policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
@ that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
@ created a more critical problem.
@
I agree...
@ If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
@ intricacies in the global routing system.
@
@ - paul
@
Given all that...we still have to move forward. There
are current generations and future generations of
people that are depending on engineers to design
a network that can help them communicate with
each other...I am confident that will happen...
These generations are also dependent on lawyers
and politicians to establish governance to allow
the networks to remain open, free and available to
the average person for a reasonable charge....I am
not confident that this will happen...partly because
the people making these decisions do not understand
the technology and are being mislead by those people
(and companies) that do understand the technology
but who want to shape things to their financial advantage...
...follow the money...it leads the wrong way...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 12:22:35 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:22:35 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
Message-ID: <01BC8B91.3C92BE60@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:30 AM, System Administrator[SMTP:wimsey at rtci.com] wrote:
@
@
@ On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:03 AM, Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net]
@ wrote:
@ I myself work for a ISP in NC, we have in use over 90% of a /18, we are
@ multihomed a t3 connect direct to sprints backbone, and a t1 to another ISP
@ which is in turn connected to sprint for address space, the problem however
@ is the fact that we are stuck using nonportable address for sprint, should
@ we change providers, we get stuck with a large amount of renumbering. I
@ don't mind the renumbering so much, its more along the fact it takes
@ forever for sprint to assign us new blocks, and the fact that our blocks
@ are spread all over the place. I have seen plenty of complaints about the
@ growth of routing tables, you things like this contribute to routing table
@ growth. I guess the main purpose of my reply is the fact that I WOULD
@ definatly sign anything you would put in front of me to get a continuous
@ block of portable addresses.
@
@ David Wimsey
@
Thanks for the comments....
Firstly, let me say that I think that it would be good if
the world could hear, first-hand, more of the stories and
descriptions of people's plight as above. Maybe one of the
things that ARIN and other such organizations will help to
do is make it OK for ISPs to describe their situations
without the fear of reprisal they have had that they will be
black-balled from allocations.
Secondly, I think that change will only occur if people
become organized. Yes, I know that ARIN is proposed to
be such an organization, but it is clearly an organization
of the same people that have controlled the resources in
the past and nothing is likely to change to help ISPs.
Instead, ISPs need to organize to form their own versions
of ARIN or to get their own organizations to handle the
same tasks as ARIN.
Thirdly, IP address allocations are not rocket science.
They are not that much different from domain registrations
from a DNS point of view.....IF, there is a simple policy
that allows a clerk to make the assignments WITHOUT
subjective evaluations. The people in charge of allocations
want to keep the subjective part because they earn their
living making those subjective judgement calls. This should
not be surprising.
Fourthly, ISPs (and large carriers) that already have IP
allocations are not going to help other ISPs to obtain the
resources they need to compete with the existing base.
Again, this is natural and should not be surprising.
Given all of these factors, ISPs face an up-hill battle.
The U.S. Government may be able to provide some
relief, but in my opinion, the best way to obtain relief
is to work together, organize yourselves and make your
demands known. Network Solutions, Inc. is clearly
organizing ARIN (or has organized it). You might want
to launch your own equivalent of ARIN.
@@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
"the Company has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named
the American Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer
IP addresses for North and South America and parts of Africa."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@ http://www.saic.com/publications/news/jun97/news06-02b-97.html
"WASHINGTON - The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Systems
Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM) has selected a Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) team to provide Global Information
Infrastructure (GII) Gateways to 20 African countries under the Leland Initiative."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 12:52:34 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:52:34 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970708114343.00a2ecfc@pop.srv.paranet.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
<33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708125234.006cefd0@lint.cisco.com>
What has this got to do with the issue of increasing the
address space, which was the topic at hand?
There's no disagreement that the two options below are
tenable.
- paul
At 11:43 AM 07/08/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>Please explain how you can effectively aggregate at a level above the AS
>(assuming all ASes are multihomed).
>
>If an AS (either ISP or business) wishes to have BGP4 sessions with two
>distinct providers, they have two options:
>
>1. Get PI space and advertise it. No special changes need to be made to
> either provider.
>
> Upside: Easy, Stable, Keeps aggregates whole
> Downside: Burns PI space quickly, Requires intelligent registry policy
>
>2. Get PA space(s) from one provider and advertise it. That provider must
> also make special changes to not filter the more-specifics.
>
> Upside: Lets registries coast with bad policies
> Downside: Painful, Unstable, Punches holes in aggregates, Burns PA space
>
>Both options use the same number of routing table entries per allocation,
>and both will have the same number of IPs per allocation, so the issue is
>neither routers falling over nor running out of addresses.
>
From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 8 12:55:56 1997
From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID:
> There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the
> head to fix:
>
> 1) limitiation on address space
>
> 2) limitations of router forwarding table space
>
> 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates.
>
> While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of
> these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on
> address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it
> would continue to be third in the prioritization.
That's a very good characterization of the issue. (I wish I could be
that accurate and concise.)
In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His
last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope
that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-)
Are other people coming up with more conservative (i.e. exhaustion occurs
sooner) estimates? If so, and if exhaustion is projected by the millenium
or thereabouts, then my premise would be incorrect.
--karl--
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 13:02:34 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:02:34 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To:
References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com>
At 09:55 AM 07/08/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
>has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
>space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
>2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His
>last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope
>that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-)
>
Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not
believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into
the projection.
- paul
From randy at PSG.COM Tue Jul 8 13:11:00 1997
From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 97 10:11 PDT
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID:
> In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
> has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
> space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
> 2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks.
For the folk here who have not been around, it might be noted that Frank's
projections, before CIDR and tighter allocation guidelines were widely
deployed, showed us already having run out now.
randy
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 13:29:19 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:29:19 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <19970708110334.11022@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
<3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net>
At 11:03 AM 7/8/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do
>reasonable things with it.
>
>If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who
>haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization
>below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A"
>addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total
>possible IPV4 space.
If I understand you correctly, you would move to reclaim, say, a /8 with 0%
utilization before a /16 with 0% utilization before a /19 with 33%
utilization, correct?
---
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 13:54:25 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:54:25 -0500
Subject: Aggressive route flap dampening
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708125425.012ee634@texoma.net>
>Posted-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:51:06 -0500 (CDT)
>Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Tony Li
>To: vaden at texoma.net
>CC: pagans at texoma.net
>Subject: Re: Aggressive route flap dampening
>
>
>
> ..
> >Note that both of these are 'fixed' without a length restriction: the per
> >prefix charge incents folks to aggregate. The per flap charge incents
them
> >to stability. Direct cause and effect, without harmful side effects.
;-)
> >
> >Tony
>
> Thank you for this very sane and important input.
>
> I wish you would post in to pagan at apnic.net and naipr at arin.net.
>
>Please feel free to forward it. I have no wish to enter yet another fire
>fight for no cause.
>
>Tony
---
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571
From bmanning at ISI.EDU Tue Jul 8 13:12:30 1997
From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jul 8, 97 01:02:34 pm
Message-ID: <199707081712.AA29071@zed.isi.edu>
> >In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
> >has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
> >space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
> >2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His
> >last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope
> >that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-)
> >
>
> Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not
> believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into
> the projection.
Franks projections were done w/o any consideration of reclaimation.
--
--bill
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 14:07:12 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:07:12 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com>
References:
<199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708130712.01cec96c@texoma.net>
At 01:02 PM 7/8/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>At 09:55 AM 07/08/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>>
>>In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
>>has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
>>space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
>>2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His
>>last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope
>>that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-)
>>
>
>Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not
>believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into
>the projection.
>
>- paul
Which would extend the projected date at which we will run out of IPv4
space, correct?
---
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571
From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Tue Jul 8 14:24:22 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 14:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Jul 8, 97 09:55:56 am
Message-ID: <199707081824.AA029716264@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Karl Auerbach supposedly said:
>
>
> > There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the
> > head to fix:
> >
> > 1) limitiation on address space
> >
> > 2) limitations of router forwarding table space
> >
> > 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates.
> >
> > While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of
> > these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on
> > address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it
> > would continue to be third in the prioritization.
>
> That's a very good characterization of the issue. (I wish I could be
> that accurate and concise.)
>
> In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software
> has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address
> space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year
> 2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His
> last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope
> that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-)
>
As I recall Franks last predictions came in at 2008 +/- 5 years. One thing
to note about those predictions is that Frank worked off of Internic
allocations and didn't have APNIC or RIPE data (if I am wrong please
correct me Frank, but this point does stick in my mind), so from the data
he used he didn't know that RIPE and APNIC were close to filling their
previously assigned blocks and would need large delegations of /8's. These
large type of allocations put large spikes in the curves and certainly
hasten the exhaustion problem.
---> Phil
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 08:57:37 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:57:37 +0100
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
References: <01BC8B8A.EEA6FC80@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33C23941.E7F@ix.netcom.com>
Jim and all,
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 3:09 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> @ Jon and all,
> @
> @ Jon Lewis wrote:
> @ >
> @ > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> @ >
> @ > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
> @ > > space.
> @ > >
> @ > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
> @ > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
> @ >
> @ > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
> @ > given a /19 :)
> @
> @ Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
> @ as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
> @ priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
> @ than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
> @ providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
> @ This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
> @ the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
> @ of ARIN.
>
> ARIN is one company of several companies. It appears
> that it has been formed by Network Solutions, Inc. and SAIC
> as part of the grand evolution plan they have developed in
> conjunction with the National Science Foundation to dismantle
> the InterNIC by March of 1998.
>
> To place all of the responsibility for the IPv4 Core Transport
> Network address space management on ARIN would not be wise.
I agree it wouldn't be. But it appears that that is what is
in the offing.
> ARIN is supposed to have a small portion of the address space.
> Unfortunately, no one has ever described precisely what part
> of the address space will be delegated to ARIN.
Yes, and this is troublesome to myself and I am sure others.
Maybe it is to early in the transition to determine what the
actual outcome of what part or all of the Ipv4 address space
will be managed and by whom. But from the tennor of the
comments from Board members here on this list, it seems that
ARIN is prepairing to manage all of the Ipv4 space.
>
> There are other organizations, with more experience, more
> stability, and better customer service than ARIN who could
> be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space for management.
Though this may be true, I have seen no perposal to do this
yet. I do hope that it does come to pass however. In this event,
there still needs to be sound policies to do so that all
organizations that MAY be managing ipv4 or Ipv6 address space
must or should follow.
> In my opinion people and companies should be working to
> cultivate those companies. We should have a dozen ARINs
> in the U.S. alone.
I don't know what the number SHOULD be, but certianly more
than one.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 15:15:10 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 15:15:10 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970708130712.01cec96c@texoma.net>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com>
<199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708151510.006c49a0@lint.cisco.com>
At 01:07 PM 07/08/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>>Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not
>>believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into
>>the projection.
>>
>
>Which would extend the projected date at which we will run out of IPv4
>space, correct?
>
Correct, assuming that the reclaimed address space was delegated
back into the registries for reallocation.
It would also pay to review RFC1879, which discusses a method to
get more bang for the proverbial buck.
- paul
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 09:02:03 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 14:02:03 +0100
Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ?
References: <01BC8B7B.BB2A96A0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33C23A4B.1F5C@ix.netcom.com>
Jim,
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 07, 1997 8:40 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] wrote:
> @ At 08:10 PM 07/07/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> @
> @ >>
> @ >> ARIN's charter is not to "run the net," as you seem to imply,
> @ >> but rather, its charter is to provide IP address allocation and
> @ >> registration services for greater North America. Also, if you'd
> @ >> bother to do your homework, you would also realize that ARIN is
> @ >> following a model which has been in place in Europe (RIPE) and
> @ >> the Asian Pacific region (APNIC) for several years now, and all
> @ >> indications are that this model functions remarkably well.
> @ >>
> @ >
> @ >Paul, I need some help here. Where can I find ARIN's charter?
> @ >
> @
> @ Ah, you are looking for a literal charter document, which doesn't
> @ exist. I meant 'charter' in the figurative sense, in that the
> @ purpose of ARIN is spelled out in documents found on their
> @ web site, namely:
> @
> @ http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html
> @
> @ - paul
> @
> @
> @
>
> According to the following, Network Solutions, Inc. (a subsidiary of SAIC)
> has already incorporated ARIN. There is no mention of who the shareholders
> are or the members of the Board of Directors. Also, there is no mention
> of how the assets being transferred from NSI/SAIC to ARIN are being
> handled.
>
> @@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
>
> "The Company has recently received authorization from the
> NSF to shift the allocation and administration of IP addresses to
> a not-for-profit organization. In support of this initiative, the Company
> has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American
> Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses
> for North and South America and parts of Africa. The Company anticipates
> that the responsibility for the allocation and administration of IP addresses
> will be transferred to ARIN by the fourth quarter of 1997. The Company
> has agreed with the NSF to provide financial support to ARIN through the
> end of the first quarter of 1998. The Company believes that the amount of
> such support will not be material to the Company's business, financial
> condition or results of operations."
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions
> of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It
> is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain.
> Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The
> National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another
> situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for
> Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies
> that depend on those resources.
From what I can tell, all of the allocations (Assets) are being
transfered
to ARIN. As far as .ARPA TLD, my understanding is that POC or iPOC will
be handeling that.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 16:23:31 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:23:31 -0500
Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ?
Message-ID: <01BC8BB2.E583F040@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 8:02 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
@ > The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions
@ > of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It
@ > is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain.
@ > Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The
@ > National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another
@ > situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for
@ > Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies
@ > that depend on those resources.
@
@ From what I can tell, all of the allocations (Assets) are being
@ transfered
@ to ARIN. As far as .ARPA TLD, my understanding is that POC or iPOC will
@ be handeling that.
@ >
I guess the NSF was not informed that IP addresses and domain
name issues are related.
What happens if the private group that takes over .ARPA or
some portion of IN-ADDR.ARPA decides to change all the
rules on delegations (domain names) that are registered in
that zone ?
Has the NSF and the U.S. Government worked all of these details out ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 16:34:20 1997
From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:34:20 -0500
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net>; from Larry Vaden on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 12:29:19PM -0500
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <19970708153420.46971@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 12:29:19PM -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
> At 11:03 AM 7/8/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> >The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do
> >reasonable things with it.
> >
> >If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who
> >haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization
> >below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A"
> >addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total
> >possible IPV4 space.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you would move to reclaim, say, a /8 with 0%
> utilization before a /16 with 0% utilization before a /19 with 33%
> utilization, correct?
>
>
> ---
> Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
> Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365
> bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
> Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571
Of course.
The greatest good and the most results should come first.
This is assuming the goal is to obtain address space (ie: we're "out" and
need to do so).
Again, the goal drives the process, not the other way around.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 19:09:59 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 19:09:59 -0400
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970708174924.00a2e90c@pop.srv.paranet.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970708125234.006cefd0@lint.cisco.com>
<3.0.2.32.19970708114343.00a2ecfc@pop.srv.paranet.com>
<3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>
<33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708190959.006dcee8@lint.cisco.com>
At 05:49 PM 07/08/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>The point was that allocating PA IPs to a multihomed AS is pointless; it'd
>be simpler and easier for everyone involved to just give them PI space.
>Aggregating between the AS level and the continental level is basically
>impossible; aggregating continent(s) might be possible, but isn't currently
>effective.
>
Gee. Thanks for the incomprehensible, and incorrect, overview.
Aggregation at the AS boundary is exactly what we do now, kimosabe.
Aggregation on geographical boundaries is not possible. We've
discussed on multiple occasions, and on multiple mailing lists,
over the course of the past few years.
I would contend that technically, it works just fine. What you
are clamoring over is a human-induced situation -- a few large
providers filtering smaller announcements. Changing this policy
is where you should be focusing your efforts, not changing the
allocation policies.
>There is no "issue of increasing the address space"; the same number of IPs
>will be used, it's just a question of whether the multihomed AS gets them
>as PI from the NIC or PA from their provider(s). It's obvious which would
>be more stable for the user (PI), and which would have a higher likelihood
>of mismanagement (PA).
>
You've obviously not comprehended my earlier missives.
The argument thus far from participants of this list for IPv6
has been in response to statements that since IPv4 address space
is a finite, limited resource, and cannot be arbitrarily allocated,
a migration to a larger address space [IPv6] is a desired goal.
I have contended that proposing a migration to v6 based solely
on this reasoning this is flawed logic -- allocation policy
would still be needed with IPv6. And chances are, you guys
would still feel discriminated against when you encountered
situations where a larger provider filtered smaller, more
specific prefixes, which violated aggregation of larger
aggregated announcements.
The current proposals on IPv6 address structure also have
provisions for aggregation -- at least one proposal has
two levels (a top level aggregator and a 'mid'-level
aggregator). The same issues will exit within IPv6
which exist within IPv4, and that is entrenched
efforts to keep the global routing system stable
and functioning.
Comprende?
- paul
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:39:59 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:39:59 -0500
Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers
Message-ID: <01BC8BCE.5772DAC0@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:14 AM, Charles T. Smith, Jr.[SMTP:cts at vec.net] wrote:
@
@ I agree, and I'd rather see it happen through ARIN than anything else
@ anyone's suggested so far.
@
@ Sure, those being pinched by the current rules and process would like
@ to see things happen quickly; however, things are moving. ARIN seems
@ to be on track; Kim tells us that the BoT is busy setting things up,
@ and having been through a similar process with the ISP/C, I can understand
@ that Kim and the other BoT members are focused elsewhere.
@
They have been working on this since January and before
that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could
take so long ?
NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't
the Board of Directors reported on that ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From cts at VEC.NET Wed Jul 9 04:51:35 1997
From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:51:35 -1300
Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers
Message-ID: <009B6F60.CE2A1FB8.16@vec.net>
> They have been working on this since January and before
> that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could
> take so long ?
Perhaps getting the folks at the NSF and other agencies to understand
what was being proposed. I was sorry to see it slowed down; however,
by getting the I's dotted and the T's crossed will lessen chances of
future direction, so it's not all bad.
> NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't
> the Board of Directors reported on that ?
Giv'em time; at least enough to let the ink dry on the paper. Given the
experience Kim and her folks have had on the net, I can easily understand
why they don't want to release things before everything's finished; it
will just bog them down more with 1000 questions. Let'em finish, get the
membership stuff ready, and once all the organization stuff's done, I'm
sure there'll be plenty of reading material, and more time for questions.
Of course, corporation papers are generally a matter of public record.
You could check with the VA Secretary of State.
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:52:02 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:52:02 -0500
Subject: Class B Recovery
Message-ID: <01BC8BD0.068B9280@webster.unety.net>
What does ARIN plan to do when a company goes
out of business (in less than 5 hours) and leaves behind
a /16 ?
Does ARIN have the delegation for 168.IN-ADDR.ARPA ?
For example...
Synet Inc. (NET-SYNET-B)
1401 W. Branding Lane
Suite 230
Downers Grove IL 60515
Netname: SYNET-B
Netnumber: 168.113.0.0
Coordinator:
Mauch, Jared (JM568) jared at PUCK.NETHER.NET
313 998 8227 (FAX) 313 998 6105
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
SPRUCE.CIC.NET 198.87.18.10
INFOSERV.ILLINOIS.NET 192.217.65.102
Record last updated on 23-Jun-97.
Database last updated on 8-Jul-97 04:25:14 EDT.
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:54:21 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:54:21 -0500
Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers
Message-ID: <01BC8BD0.5935FCA0@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:50 AM, Charles T. Smith, Jr.[SMTP:cts at vec.net] wrote:
@ > They have been working on this since January and before
@ > that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could
@ > take so long ?
@
@ Perhaps getting the folks at the NSF and other agencies to understand
@ what was being proposed. I was sorry to see it slowed down; however,
@ by getting the I's dotted and the T's crossed will lessen chances of
@ future direction, so it's not all bad.
@
Does the NSF only deal with NSI ?
@ > NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't
@ > the Board of Directors reported on that ?
@
@ Giv'em time; at least enough to let the ink dry on the paper. Given the
When will the next ARIN be started ?
Why do these people have a monopoly ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 20:43:17 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:43:17 -0500
Subject: RIPE and ARIN ?
Message-ID: <01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net>
Does RIPE compete with ARIN...?
@@@ http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/PAGES/US.html
"Local Internet Registries offering service in UNITED STATES"
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From editor at txlaw.com Tue Jul 8 21:37:03 1997
From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 20:37:03 -0500
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
References: <01BC8BCB.8AFA1B40@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com>
I am not commenting on the quality of the ARIN board of trustees but on
the organic process involved. I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
members will come in the future. This is not my idea of democracy.
Immediate change in this structure should be non-negotiable, in my
opinion. If immediate change to some representational form of governance
does not occur, there are all kinds of avenues to pursue. We need to
start discussing them.
Thus, I believe that Jim's point should not be dismissed out of hand.
Are there any other thoughts down this line? Frankly, I think we should
be exploring several alternatives simultaneously in case ARIN can not be
reformed.
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma, Inc.
The ISP which DIDN'T
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:18 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at priori.net] wrote:
> @
> @ The ISP/C currently has no interest of becoming a registry. We do intend
> @ to be involved in helping the registries form their policies, as well as
> @ representing the ISP community to the registries, but have no interest in
> @ performing the role ourselves.
> @
> @ Justin "Speaking for the ISP/C" Newton
> @
>
> That is too bad....maybe some other ISP-oriented organization
> will realize the importance of this role...
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jul 8 23:02:40 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:02:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com>
Message-ID:
Eric sez:
I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
members will come in the future.
>From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most
definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage
the NSI president is on it?
Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
"grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
image in my opinion.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 23:29:36 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 22:29:36 -0500
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
Message-ID: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@ Eric sez:
@ I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
@ is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
@ annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
@ members will come in the future.
@
@ >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most
@ definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage
@ the NSI president is on it?
@
Don Telage is no longer the President of NSI.
Gabe Batistta runs the show...since November 1996.
Don Telage is V.P. of Special Projects (or something similar)
@ Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
@ "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
@ composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
@ nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
@ so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
@ Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
@ image in my opinion.
@
Don Telage wrote the NSI plan in response to the IAHC.
It is hard to imagine that he does not "grok" the Internet.
It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI
IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others
will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF
was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain
registrations. What better person to lead the charge in
charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended)
NSI has already started to divide the people and space.
It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers
end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC
which is more Don Telage's domain.
The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and
.ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD
Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and
not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new
set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC.
That appears to be the image that has been projected for
a long time at .
Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what
remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in
the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled
and funded by the NSF.
======
The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three
functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was
PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout
and other activities.
When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not
replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS
contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks)
Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the
InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows
NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these
activities.
People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC.
Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what
used to be part of the InterNIC.
P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the
InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the
ISOC.
======
@@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163
NSF Award Abstract - #9712163
Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies
NSF Org NCR
Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997
Award Number 9712163
Award Instr.Continuing Grant
Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell
NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR
CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR
Start Date May 1, 1997
Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated)
Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu
Susan Calcari
Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison
750 University Ave
Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234
NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications
Abstract
The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology
service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently
provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and
students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the
Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly
electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of
use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that
provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each
day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit
summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed
by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS
Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle,
and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites
they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will
continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide
additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports
produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering,
Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement
new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific
subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base
the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been
included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections
of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be
identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM Tue Jul 8 23:38:05 1997
From: kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM (Ken Leland)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Cook" at Jul 8, 97 11:02:40 pm
Message-ID: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com>
Gordon wrote.
> Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
> "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
> composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you very much Gordon, but I haven't made the many years of personal
blood sweat and tears contribution/innovation in the basic net makeup
-RFC's etc- that our community looks for and *needs* in an ARIN trustee.
This is the prime reason why most of us don't think our current Trustees
Scott, Randy et al, will screw it up - They just have too much invested in
their labor of love - The Internet. Its the same reason we want Vixie
making sure that DNS doesn't break, he would rather loose an arm than
see that happen.
> nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
> so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
> Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
> image in my opinion.
>
On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition
standpoint.
ken
From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jul 8 23:55:22 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID:
To those old hands here who manage to filter out flemings slanderous
stench! Congratulations.
To anyone new who may be wondering about flemings malodourous SLIME. He
is an inveterate liar who reeks with the stench of a 3 day old dead fish.
best ignored....which means i am not following my own advice.....sigh.
Fleming you asshole.... you have one lie after another in your little
history..... get lost beyond your stargate. but if i had the means and
the time to invest.....
i'd hire a
lawyer
and
serve
you
with
papers.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
> @ Eric sez:
> @ I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
> @ is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
> @ annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
> @ members will come in the future.
> @
> @ >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most
> @ definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage
> @ the NSI president is on it?
> @
>
> Don Telage is no longer the President of NSI.
> Gabe Batistta runs the show...since November 1996.
> Don Telage is V.P. of Special Projects (or something similar)
>
> @ Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
> @ "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
> @ composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
> @ nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
> @ so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
> @ Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
> @ image in my opinion.
> @
>
> Don Telage wrote the NSI plan in response to the IAHC.
> It is hard to imagine that he does not "grok" the Internet.
>
> It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI
> IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others
> will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF
> was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain
> registrations. What better person to lead the charge in
> charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended)
>
> NSI has already started to divide the people and space.
> It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers
> end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC
> which is more Don Telage's domain.
>
> The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and
> .ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD
> Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and
> not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new
> set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC.
> That appears to be the image that has been projected for
> a long time at .
>
> Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what
> remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in
> the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled
> and funded by the NSF.
>
>
> ======
>
> The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three
> functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was
> PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout
> and other activities.
>
> When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not
> replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS
> contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks)
>
> Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the
> InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows
> NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these
> activities.
>
> People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC.
> Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what
> used to be part of the InterNIC.
>
> P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the
> InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the
> ISOC.
>
>
> ======
>
>
> @@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163
>
> NSF Award Abstract - #9712163
>
> Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies
>
> NSF Org NCR
> Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997
> Award Number 9712163
> Award Instr.Continuing Grant
> Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell
> NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR
> CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR
> Start Date May 1, 1997
> Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated)
> Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated)
> Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu
> Susan Calcari
> Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison
> 750 University Ave
> Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234
> NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications
>
> Abstract
>
> The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology
> service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently
> provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and
> students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the
> Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly
> electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of
> use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that
> provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each
> day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit
> summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed
> by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS
> Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle,
> and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites
> they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will
> continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide
> additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports
> produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering,
> Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement
> new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific
> subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base
> the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been
> included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections
> of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be
> identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
>
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 00:00:22 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 00:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com>
Message-ID:
Ken i agree with everything you say. And I take my hat off to one of the
minority voices of reason on this list. In naming you and jsutin i was
trying to capture the idea of clueful representative of the smaller ISPs.
I thing the arin board is pretty darned represenative of the net
considering it is only five people.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Ken Leland wrote:
>
> Gordon wrote.
>
> > Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
> > "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
> > composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Thank you very much Gordon, but I haven't made the many years of personal
> blood sweat and tears contribution/innovation in the basic net makeup
> -RFC's etc- that our community looks for and *needs* in an ARIN trustee.
> This is the prime reason why most of us don't think our current Trustees
> Scott, Randy et al, will screw it up - They just have too much invested in
> their labor of love - The Internet. Its the same reason we want Vixie
> making sure that DNS doesn't break, he would rather loose an arm than
> see that happen.
>
> > nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
> > so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
> > Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
> > image in my opinion.
> >
>
> On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition
> standpoint.
>
> ken
>
From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Wed Jul 9 00:23:39 1997
From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:23:39 +0200
Subject: RIPE and ARIN ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 08 Jul 1997 19:43:17 CDT.
<01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net>
References: <01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <9707090423.AA13498@ncc.ripe.net>
> Jim Fleming writes:
>
> Does RIPE compete with ARIN...?
>
> @@@ http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/PAGES/US.html
>
> "Local Internet Registries offering service in UNITED STATES"
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jim,
no the RIPE NCC does not compete with ARIN. The mandate from our
constituency is concisely defined in document ripe-144 'RIPE NCC
Activities & Expenditure 1997' (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-144.html).
I have referred both yourself and this list to this document before.
The specific activity is 'R.1 Regional Internet Registry'
(http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-144.html#toc19):
The RIPE NCC provides Internet registration services for Europe
and surrounding areas; it acts as a Regional Internet Registry.
The overall goal of this activity is to provide fair, impartial and
stable distribution of Internet numbers, especially address space in
Europe and the surrounding areas. The specific goals for address space
are uniqueness of addresses, conservation of the remaining IPv4 address
space, aggregation of routing information and registration of network
management information.
Our registry list contains "Local Internet Registries offering service
in UNITED STATES" because these LIRs also provide services in our area
and for that purpose act as local IRs in our area. The list is
automagically generated from our LIR database which in turn is based on
the information provided by the LIRs themselves.
Of 733 LIRs active in our region only 4 are listed as providing service
in the US and only one of those is based in the US. This shows that in
this respect the regions as currently defined make a lot of sense.
Daniel Karrenberg
General Manager
RIPE NCC
From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Jul 9 00:47:45 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 13:47:45 +0900
Subject: Forcible reclamation?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:55:56 MST."
Message-ID: <199707090447.NAA01891@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
[This is probably better off in PAGAN, as it isn't really specific to ARIN]
Karl,
>Are other people coming up with more conservative (i.e. exhaustion occurs
>sooner) estimates? If so, and if exhaustion is projected by the millenium
>or thereabouts, then my premise would be incorrect.
First define "exhaustion". There are people who claim that we have
already exhausted the IPv4 Internet address space as there are viable
Internet technology using applications which cannot be implemented on
today's Internet due to address space limitiations (or so I'm told).
I tend to argue that Internet address space will NEVER be exhausted
for the simple reason that people depend on the Internet and as such,
they'll do whatever it takes to get the resources they _need_. The
persistent (as yet unsubstantiated) rumors of a black market in /16s
is merely one facet of people doing whatever it takes to meet their
requirements.
More specifically, as address space becomes more and more scarce (or
rather, perceived to be more and more scarce), the "value" of that
address space will increase. As value increases, organizations
currently holding vast tracts of unused Internet address space will
have increased incentive to convert that address space into used, most
likely by someone else who would be willing to pay real money to
obtain the space.
Of course, such "non-traditional" approaches toward obtaining address
space are not recoginized under current registry policies.
Regards,
-drc
From kimh at internic.net Wed Jul 9 08:37:21 1997
From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:37:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 8, 97 10:29:36 pm
Message-ID: <199707091237.IAA21126@vampyre.internic.net>
>
You know that Don Telage is not going to be running ARIN. I don't
know why you persist in posting these fantasies of yours. People
may believe them in the short term, but everyone eventually catches
on and it really doesn't help your credibility, Jim.
Kim Hubbard
> It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI
> IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others
> will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF
> was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain
> registrations. What better person to lead the charge in
> charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended)
>
> NSI has already started to divide the people and space.
> It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers
> end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC
> which is more Don Telage's domain.
>
> The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and
> .ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD
> Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and
> not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new
> set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC.
> That appears to be the image that has been projected for
> a long time at .
>
> Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what
> remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in
> the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled
> and funded by the NSF.
>
>
> ======
>
> The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three
> functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was
> PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout
> and other activities.
>
> When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not
> replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS
> contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks)
>
> Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the
> InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows
> NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these
> activities.
>
> People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC.
> Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what
> used to be part of the InterNIC.
>
> P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the
> InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the
> ISOC.
>
>
> ======
>
>
> @@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163
>
> NSF Award Abstract - #9712163
>
> Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies
>
> NSF Org NCR
> Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997
> Award Number 9712163
> Award Instr.Continuing Grant
> Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell
> NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR
> CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR
> Start Date May 1, 1997
> Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated)
> Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated)
> Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu
> Susan Calcari
> Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison
> 750 University Ave
> Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234
> NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications
>
> Abstract
>
> The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology
> service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently
> provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and
> students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the
> Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly
> electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of
> use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that
> provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each
> day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit
> summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed
> by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS
> Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle,
> and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites
> they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will
> continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide
> additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports
> produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering,
> Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement
> new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific
> subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base
> the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been
> included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections
> of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be
> identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
>
From kimh at internic.net Wed Jul 9 08:38:09 1997
From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com> from "Ken Leland" at Jul 8, 97 11:38:05 pm
Message-ID: <199707091238.IAA21133@vampyre.internic.net>
>
> On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition
> standpoint.
Exactly.
Kim
>
> ken
>
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 09:46:04 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:46:04 -0500
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
Message-ID: <01BC8C44.89C84700@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:37 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@ >
@ You know that Don Telage is not going to be running ARIN. I don't
@ know why you persist in posting these fantasies of yours. People
@ may believe them in the short term, but everyone eventually catches
@ on and it really doesn't help your credibility, Jim.
@
@ Kim Hubbard
@
You said it was "TBD" who at NSI would move to ARIN.
Can you explain who will be "running" ARIN ?
I have heard several different versions from ARIN insiders.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:27:51 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:27:51 -0500
Subject: IP allocation policies
Message-ID: <01BC8C4A.60152BC0@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@
@ While everyone is discussing the issue of relaxing the allocation policies for ARIN, I would like to make a suggestion.
@
I thought the policies for ARIN, RIPE and APNIC were going
to be the same....is that not the case ?
Is the pricing the same between ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ?
Again, what is the status of ARIN ?
Has it been staffed ?
Are there ARIN employees ?
Who will be running ARIN ?
Do the delays have anything to do with the NSI IPO ?
Have people left NSI and joined ARIN ?
Have assets been transferred between NSI and ARIN ?
What about the /8s ?
Which /8s will ARIN be managing ?
Lastly, who is managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:06:31 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:06:31 +0100
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
References: <01BC8BCB.8AFA1B40@webster.unety.net> <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <33C34687.7E93@ix.netcom.com>
Eric,
Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
> I am not commenting on the quality of the ARIN board of trustees but on
> the organic process involved. I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
> is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
> annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
> members will come in the future. This is not my idea of democracy.
> Immediate change in this structure should be non-negotiable, in my
> opinion. If immediate change to some representational form of governance
> does not occur, there are all kinds of avenues to pursue. We need to
> start discussing them.
I agree completly.
>
> Thus, I believe that Jim's point should not be dismissed out of hand.
> Are there any other thoughts down this line? Frankly, I think we should
> be exploring several alternatives simultaneously in case ARIN can not be
> reformed.
Yes, I believe I posted those earlier. But one of them ws that
all board members should be elected by the members/stockholders.
That those Members serve both the members and the user community.
These are just general principals however. If you like, I will look
back up my post reguarding "Principals" thread, and repost? Comments?
>
> Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> Internet Texoma, Inc.
> The ISP which DIDN'T
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:18 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at priori.net] wrote:
> > @
> > @ The ISP/C currently has no interest of becoming a registry. We do intend
> > @ to be involved in helping the registries form their policies, as well as
> > @ representing the ISP community to the registries, but have no interest in
> > @ performing the role ourselves.
> > @
> > @ Justin "Speaking for the ISP/C" Newton
> > @
> >
> > That is too bad....maybe some other ISP-oriented organization
> > will realize the importance of this role...
> >
> > --
> > Jim Fleming
> > Unir Corporation
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:09:16 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:09:16 +0100
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
References:
Message-ID: <33C3472B.5B23@ix.netcom.com>
Gordon,
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Eric sez:
> I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
> is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
> annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
> members will come in the future.
We certianly are in agreement here for a change.
>
> >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most
> definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage
> the NSI president is on it?
>
> Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
> "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
> composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
> nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
> so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
> Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
> image in my opinion.
I think it would have had a positive effect as well.
>
> ************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
> Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
> attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
> ************************************************************************
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:33:47 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:33:47 -0500
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
Message-ID: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently
@ utilize address space.
How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:28:36 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:28:36 +0100
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
References: <199707091238.IAA21133@vampyre.internic.net>
Message-ID: <33C34BB4.3D11@ix.netcom.com>
Kim and all,
Kim Hubbard wrote:
>
> >
> > On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition
> > standpoint.
>
> Exactly.
Than keep him on in a special advisory capacity. Not as a board
member. Bad policy!
>
> Kim
>
> >
> > ken
> >
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:43:20 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:43:20 -0500
Subject: ISP/C Example
Message-ID: <01BC8C4C.89C01000@webster.unety.net>
For people "organizing" ARIN.....
I suggest that you follow some of the open and democratic
processes used by the ISP/C. They should be applauded for
their efforts and be used as a model for organizations that
serve their members and the public.
Here is a sample of one of their recent postings. Their web
site has more information.
Jim Fleming
=======
----------
From: Deb Howard[SMTP:deb.howard at 2COWHERD.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 2:28 AM
To: ISPC-LIST at ispc.org
Subject: Announcement of 1997-98 Officers and Directorates
Dear ISP/C Members and Interested Others:
On behalf of the ISP/C Board of Directors, I am pleased to make the
following announcement as to the results of Board elections and appointments
to various Board positions:
1. Election of Board Officers: President, Vice President, Treasurer.
For President, Newton/Howard nominated and Brown seconded the nomination of
Charles T. Smith.
For Vice President, Smith moved and Brown seconded the nomination of Roxanna
Loveday.
For Treasurer, Smallacombe/Freedman moved and Crocker seconded the
nomination of Doug R. Locke.
Nominations from the floor were closed, and the slate as submitted was
passed by unanimous roll call vote. Congratulations to our new Officers!
2. Appointment of Directorships:
Appointment of Secretary
William Sommers
Appointment of Education and Training Director
Kevin Crocker
Appointment of Membership Services Director
Kevin Wenzel
Appointment of Membership Recruiting Director
Jon Mann
Appointment of System Management Director (Server Manager: Ray Davis)
Jeff Lawhorn, James Smallacombe (back-up)
Appointment of Communications Director
Deb Howard
Appointment of Policy & Lobbying Director
Justin Newton
Appointment of Special Projects Director(s)
Matt Simerson
Avi Freedman
James Smallacombe
The above slate was passed by unanimous voice vote.
3. Board terms of office: 1, 2 or 3 year terms available.
Tim Brown 3 years
Kevin Crocker 1 year
Avi Freedman 3 years
Deborah Howard 1 year
Jeffrey Lawhorn 2 years
Douglas Locke 2 years
Roxanna Loveday 3 years
Jonathan Mann 1 year
Justin Newton 2 years
Matt Simerson 1 year
James Smallacombe 1 year
William Sommers 3 years
Charles Smith 2 years
Kevin Wenzel 2 years
The above slate was passed by unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Howard, MPH
1996-97 President
1997-98 Chair of the Board
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah A. Howard, MPH, Partner
2 COW HERD, Venice Beach, CA's Original Full Spectrum ISP
(310) 448-1680 (phone) (310) 827-5355 (FAX)
http://www.2cowherd.net deb.howard at 2cowherd.net
Chair of the Board, Internet Service Provider's Consortium
http://www.ispc.org http://www.euro.ispc.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 11:06:28 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 10:06:28 -0500
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
Message-ID: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 7:00 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote:
@
@ I thing the arin board is pretty darned represenative of the net
@ considering it is only five people.
@
"representative" ?.....please read
=========================
Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico
Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF
John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI
Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA
Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI
=========================
Where is Canada's representation ?
Where is Africa's representation ?
Where is South America's representation ?
@@@@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
"the Company has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the
American Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer
IP addresses for North and South America and parts of Africa."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 11:21:51 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:21:51 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT."
<01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
> @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently
> @ utilize address space.
> How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ?
Well, way back in the 1940s, this guy Turing propsed what is now well known
as the Turing Test. Just apply that. You talk to them on the phone for
15 or 20 minutes, and it will become readily apparent who actually knows
what they're doing and which ones are the newbies.
I've seen more than one start-up ISP who (believe it or not) had a *head*
technical person who didn't understand subnetting. I'm relatively sure that
this is the sort of organization that Kim is referring to, and I have relatively
high trust in Kim (and company) hiring techies who will be able to spot this
sort of startup fairly easily.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 11:38:23 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 10:38:23 -0500
Subject: IP allocation policies
In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4A.60152BC0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net>
Jim,
There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook.
Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?"
questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on.
-----
At 09:27 AM 7/9/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net]
wrote:
>@
>@ While everyone is discussing the issue of relaxing the allocation
policies for ARIN, I would like to make a suggestion.
>@
>
>I thought the policies for ARIN, RIPE and APNIC were going
>to be the same....is that not the case ?
>
>Is the pricing the same between ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ?
>
>Again, what is the status of ARIN ?
>Has it been staffed ?
>Are there ARIN employees ?
>Who will be running ARIN ?
>
>Do the delays have anything to do with the NSI IPO ?
>
>Have people left NSI and joined ARIN ?
>
>Have assets been transferred between NSI and ARIN ?
>
>What about the /8s ?
>Which /8s will ARIN be managing ?
>
>Lastly, who is managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
>
>--
>Jim Fleming
>Unir Corporation
>
>
>
From michael at STB.INFO.COM Wed Jul 9 12:23:00 1997
From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 97 09:23 PDT
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
Message-ID:
I'm sorry, but I can't let that go.
If you talk to them for 15 or 20 minutes, you do not know, and it does
not become apparent, who knows what they are doing and who doesn't.
It becomes apparent who the interviewer believes knows what they are talking
about.
The turing test was not about proving a computer as intelligent as
a person. It was about, can a computer deceive a person.
People are able to deceive other people into thinking that they
are an AI program. See metamagical themas for a classic on this.
This was from a supposed military inlelligence AI project:
Q: "What is a foot?"
A: "12.0 inches"
Q: "What is an arm?"
A: "That information is classified."
Now, if you have a competent interviewer, the beliefs of the interviewer
will be close to reality. But in all fairness, you need three interviewers
to do a fair job (one might just hit it off poorly, or otherwise be
biased), and in any event, not all true statements can be proved.
Not all who are competent at running a network are competent at
explaining themselves to others.
Those are two different areas of expertise.
>On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
>> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
>> @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently
>> @ utilize address space.
>> How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ?
>
>Well, way back in the 1940s, this guy Turing propsed what is now well known
>as the Turing Test. Just apply that. You talk to them on the phone for
>15 or 20 minutes, and it will become readily apparent who actually knows
>what they're doing and which ones are the newbies.
>
>I've seen more than one start-up ISP who (believe it or not) had a *head*
>technical person who didn't understand subnetting. I'm relatively sure that
>this is the sort of organization that Kim is referring to, and I have relatively
>high trust in Kim (and company) hiring techies who will be able to spot this
>sort of startup fairly easily.
>--
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Computer Systems Senior Engineer
> Virginia Tech
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 12:27:08 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: IP allocation policies
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net>
Message-ID:
Larry wrote:
Jim,
There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook.
Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?"
questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on.
COOK: let's get a couple of things clear. One of the most harmful things
that you can ever do for the long term image of internet texoma is portray
yourself as a fleming support which is what you are doing here.
Second - the day I ever take the FILTH that spews from flemings keyboard
as a guide of what to ask in my own reporting will be the day that I hang
up my hat and close down my newsletter.
Chill larry chill.......
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 12:37:24 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:37:24 -0500
Subject: IP allocation policies
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709113724.0152de84@texoma.net>
At 12:27 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>COOK: let's get a couple of things clear. One of the most harmful things
>that you can ever do for the long term image of internet texoma is portray
>yourself as a fleming support which is what you are doing here.
>
>Second - the day I ever take the FILTH that spews from flemings keyboard
>as a guide of what to ask in my own reporting will be the day that I hang
>up my hat and close down my newsletter.
>
>Chill larry chill.......
Actually, Gordon, rather than supporting Fleming, I was suggesting that you
ask the "who, what, where, why and when?" and report on them, as is being
done by journalist Randy Barrett
Senior Writer
Inter at ctive Week http://www.intweek.com
Voice: 703-938-2087
Fax: 2088
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 12:38:06 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:38:06 -0500
Subject: IP allocation policies
Message-ID: <01BC8C5C.924B0080@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 10:38 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote:
@ Jim,
@
@ There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook.
@ Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?"
@ questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on.
@
Gordon Cook appears to be one of the people helping to
organize ARIN....I do not think that falls under "journalism"...
@@@@@ http://www.cookreport.com/06.04.shtml
"In April ARIN was back on track and headed for a September 1 opening,
when, suddenly at the beginning of May, we received word that ARIN
was once again on hold. Why? Because OMB had decided to fix the
problems of IP. The only problem was that the underlying problems, which
are technical, are not administratively "fixable", and the people sitting
around the Inter Agency DNS Task Force table either didn't know it
or would not admit it. After sending scathing private mail to an
administration official, we received a reply on May 11 that told us worlds
about the problem. "As far as I know -- the only outstanding objection
to ARIN is whether they are dealing with number portability.?
Certainly -- number portability is critical in the telephony context to
promoting competition - so people are asking -- why not portability
for Internet? If you have any recommendations for people on the
technical side - I'd appreciate it."
We passed this data along to the appropriate technical leadership
of the net, went to Russia and waited for more news. When it came
it was that a succession of technical folk had done the educating
called for but that amazingly ARIN had been thrown a new curve.
The feds were now insisting it be announced in the Federal Registry
before it was formed. We were told that this new delay would kill
ARIN, and that worse, it was doing nothing to solve the authority
problems of the IANA."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 13:03:47 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 13:03:47 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT."
References:
Message-ID: <199707091703.NAA18616@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT, Michael Gersten said:
> Now, if you have a competent interviewer, the beliefs of the interviewer
> will be close to reality. But in all fairness, you need three interviewers
> to do a fair job (one might just hit it off poorly, or otherwise be
> biased), and in any event, not all true statements can be proved.
> Not all who are competent at running a network are competent at
> explaining themselves to others.
Hmm.. are you implying that it's possible that Scott Bradner and Tony Li have
us fooled regarding their networking expertise? Or that the ISP's that I
ran into that didn't understand subnetting *ARE* in fact possesed of mega-kloo?
The system I proposed seems to work fairly well in real life. Otherwise,
job interviews would have been given up a *LONG* time ago, if talking to
the person was not an accurate predictor of actual knowledge posessed.
Also, your last point "not all people competent at running a net are good
at explaining themselves" is a bit suspect as well. If they are unable to
explain themselves, are they *REALLY* competent at running a network? Or
are you looking at a case where *one* guy can run everything, but if he ever
has to talk to others, you're waiting for a disaster? (Cut to post-mortem of
a network outage: "It's not *MY* fault our upstream provider didn't at all
understand my bungled explanation of what we wanted, and that all of our
routing information got shipped to Albequerque.....")
There's a reason why "good communication skills required" often appears in
job descriptions....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 13:16:50 1997
From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 97 10:16:50 PDT
Subject: Continental Aggregation
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 97 12:53:40 EDT."
<9707091653.AA18510@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <199707091716.KAA06170@puli.cisco.com>
Thomas,
> > Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing
> > v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard
> > (or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists).
>
> And others would argue differently. For instance:
Of course...
> 1) IPv4's current state of poor aggregability has a lot to do with
> legacy addresses that were handed out long ago before the need for
> CIDR-like aggregability was well understood. IPv6 starts with a clean
> slate, so addresses can be allocated more sanely from the start.
>
> How many prefixes would be in the DFZ today if we could renumber every
> site?
I see - your solution to site renumbering is to transition to IPv6.
Certainly one possible option. But certainly not the only one possible.
And unlikely to be most cost effective either. However, one could
certainly use a nuke to kill a fly... :-)
> 3) Some members of this list argue that *is* possible to renumber
> sites.
This is not the matter of arguments - it is a matter of fact.
> In fact, the continued success of IPv4 appears to depend on
> this. IPv6 is likely to make it even easier (though still not
> trivial) for end sites to renumber than in IPv4. This means v6 may be
> better able to maintain aggregability into the future.
Explain to me how IPv6 would make it *noticeably* easier, as compared
to a host running Win95 (or for that matter OS/2 that as far as I
know implements DHCP and Dynamic DNS Updates).
Yakov.
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 14:34:59 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:34:59 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com>
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
<199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com>
At 02:15 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>
>I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that
>to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps
>the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test
>of sorts.
Pray tell, why would cisco wish to get involved in certification
of ISP's? Don't count on this happening.
> After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that
>cannot handle the routes.
>
This is analagous to stating that it is GMC's fault that a bus
they manufactured won't hold a thousand people. Be for real.
- paul
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 14:58:54 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:58:54 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:15:55 EDT."
<33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com>
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
<33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com>
Message-ID: <199707091858.OAA12550@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:15:55 EDT, Vince Wolodkin said:
> Problem with the "Turing" test is that it is to subjective. I would
> agree that Kim could likely tell who knew but in the long run, this
> method CANNOT work because it has the "appearance" of impropriety. If
> you want to certify people you are going to have to come up with a test.
You know, that same thought occurred to me while I was at lunch. Although
it would be easy to get it to 95% accuracy, there's just too many people who
*sound* reasonable, but turn out to be raving psychotics with delusions
about black helicopters, spaceships hiding in comets, or what have you.
Hell, we've got our fair share on the NAIPR list. ;)
/Valdis (who is intentionally not naming names. You know who you are, and
the secret message for today is "The cow has infested the church steeple" ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 15:09:44 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:09:44 -0500
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com>
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
<199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709140944.00eb1a30@texoma.net>
At 02:15 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>Problem with the "Turing" test is that it is to subjective. I would
>agree that Kim could likely tell who knew but in the long run, this
>method CANNOT work because it has the "appearance" of impropriety. If
>you want to certify people you are going to have to come up with a test.
>
>I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that
>to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps
>the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test
>of sorts. After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that
>cannot handle the routes.
>
>Vince Wolodkin
I think I'll keep visiting Vince's and digitalink.com's site performance of
a few more years.
Very well put, Vince.
From gherbert at CRL.COM Wed Jul 9 15:08:55 1997
From: gherbert at CRL.COM (George Herbert)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 12:08:55 -0700
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT."
Message-ID: <199707091908.AA12666@mail.crl.com>
Michael, you can't just fake sufficient knowledge of IP networking
to appear competent without understanding enough to be capable of
doing it right. There are a few key questions to establish if the
person knows more than the buzzwords. If they pass those, they know
enough to be able to get the right answer, though they might not
all the time.
"So, what size netblock are you allocating per POP, and how does
that break down by classes of service you're offering?"
"Do you forsee any problems explaining CIDR allocations and netblock
subnet calculations to your customers? How will you approach it?"
...and then talk them through what they're going to tell their customers.
"Does any of your hardware have any problems with variable sized subnets?
What vendors are you buying routers from? Have you done variable subnet
configuration on all those brands before?"
-george william herbert
gherbert at crl.com
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 15:42:09 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:42:09 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <33C3DFD2.63C04A04@digitalink.com>
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
<199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
<3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com>
At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>
>If enough people had a reason to get a thousand people on a bus, you can
>bet your ass GMC would be building one. I represent a business that
>wants to have 24 hour uninterrupted connectivity to the net, because
>that is our business. The only way I can come close to that is
>multi-homing with multiple providers. Unless I get at least a /19, I
>cannot do this casue I will be filtered because Cisco's router's can't
>handle enough routes to give everyone PI space. It's not Cisco's fault
>that they can't keep up with the growth of the Internet, at least I
>wasn't saying that.
>
>But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is
>because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If
>this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24?
>
Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
people afford it?
- paul
From michael at priori.net Wed Jul 9 16:04:43 1997
From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:04:43 -0700
Subject: ISP/C Example
In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4C.89C01000@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID:
>For people "organizing" ARIN.....
>
>I suggest that you follow some of the open and democratic
>processes used by the ISP/C. They should be applauded for
>their efforts and be used as a model for organizations that
>serve their members and the public.
You seem to have missed a few facts.
A. The board of directors of the ISP/C during it's first year of existence was
self-selected and *NOT* chosen by the members.
B. The minutes that you posted was of a board of directors meeting during
which the board of directors decided which positions each director would
hold and how many years each director's term of office would be.
C. The decisions at this meeting were unanimous.
So far it would appear that ARIN is every bit as democratic as the ISP/C is.
********************************************************
Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
********************************************************
From michael at priori.net Wed Jul 9 16:08:10 1997
From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:08:10 -0700
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID:
>"representative" ?.....please read
>
>=========================
>Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico
>Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF
>John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
>Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
>Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI
>Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA
>Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI
>=========================
>
>Where is Canada's representation ?
Some Canadians feel that Scott Bradner understands the Canadian Internet
quite well. Rather than using crass political apportionment to choose the
BoT it makes more sense to let the BoT evolve over time. Canadians will
have ample opportunity to join ARIN as members and to elect members of the
Advisory Board and if those people show that they deserve the public trust
of *ALL* North Americans then they may well end up on the BoT as well.
********************************************************
Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
********************************************************
From chris at NAP.NET Wed Jul 9 16:21:49 1997
From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:21:49 -0500
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
Message-ID: <01BC8C7B.D31A1820@Mallard.nap.net>
Paul,
Perhaps he was referring to the CCIE certification. If
this is the case, I'd have to say I've met a few CCIE's who
seem to have had better success hunting snipes than clues.
Chris A. Icide
Sr. Engineer
Nap.Net, L.L.C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ferguson [SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 1:35 PM
To: Vince Wolodkin
Cc: pagan at APNIC.NET; NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: Re: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
At 02:15 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>
>I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that
>to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps
>the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test
>of sorts.
Pray tell, why would cisco wish to get involved in certification
of ISP's? Don't count on this happening.
> After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that
>cannot handle the routes.
>
This is analagous to stating that it is GMC's fault that a bus
they manufactured won't hold a thousand people. Be for real.
- paul
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 17:12:46 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 16:12:46 -0500
Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
Message-ID: <01BC8C82.F0F29C80@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:08 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] wrote:
@
@ >"representative" ?.....please read
@ >
@ >=========================
@ >Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico
@ >Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF
@ >John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
@ >Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6
@ >Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI
@ >Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA
@ >Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI
@ >=========================
@ >
@ >Where is Canada's representation ?
@
@ Some Canadians feel that Scott Bradner understands the Canadian Internet
@ quite well. Rather than using crass political apportionment to choose the
@ BoT it makes more sense to let the BoT evolve over time. Canadians will
@ have ample opportunity to join ARIN as members and to elect members of the
@ Advisory Board and if those people show that they deserve the public trust
@ of *ALL* North Americans then they may well end up on the BoT as well.
@
@
Great, as other similar organizations to ARIN are set up
people will likely want to take that into account.
There is a group in Canada that is working hard on a
new Root Name Server Confederation with serious
servers and connectivity. They might be candidates
to follow in ARIN's footsteps.
There is another group in Australia that is bringing
a new Root Name Server Confederation online. They
understand the Registry Industry and will also likely
be a candidate to develop an ARIN-like company.
Network Solutions, Inc. certainly does not have a
monopoly on setting up non-profit companies to
serve the Internet community. People in the U.S.
are recognizing this and realize that they can now
move forward with their plans.
P.S. The ARIN web site
indicates that ARIN is "not limited to" the areas
shown below. What is the region ARIN covers
and have the people in those regions been informed
that ARIN claims to handle their area ?
@@@@ http://www.arin.net
"Those areas include, but are not limited to,
North America, South America, South Africa
and the Caribbean."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 17:38:55 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:38:55 -0500
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
Message-ID: <199707092139.QAA04048@mail.texoma.net>
At 03:42 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>
>>
>>But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is
>>because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If
>>this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24?
>>
>
>Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
>people afford it?
I understand from an informed source that the market is taking care of that
issue:
"There are three companies out there building routers which ought to be able
to forward at OC192 speeds and handle a million routes. If small providers
get /19's and core routers start to fall over, these companies will probably
come to market faster. Two of the three are staffed by people I'm in awe of
and I therefore expect the products to actually work."
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 18:09:07 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 17:09:07 -0500
Subject: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity
In-Reply-To:
References: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net>
>From
However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as
outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new
blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization.
From ahp at hilander.com Wed Jul 9 18:31:45 1997
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 18:31:45 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com>; from Paul Ferguson on Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com>
On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
> people afford it?
You mean the people who will _need_ it, like the backbone providers?
I certainly so.
Alec
--
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. |
|Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. |
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
From cts at VEC.NET Thu Jul 10 03:41:50 1997
From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 18:41:50 -1300
Subject: ISP/C Example
Message-ID: <009B7020.39DA9944.46@vec.net>
>You seem to have missed a few facts.
>
>A. The board of directors of the ISP/C during it's first year of existence was
> self-selected and *NOT* chosen by the members.
>
>B. The minutes that you posted was of a board of directors meeting during
> which the board of directors decided which positions each director would
> hold and how many years each director's term of office would be.
>
>C. The decisions at this meeting were unanimous.
>
>So far it would appear that ARIN is every bit as democratic as the ISP/C is.
I'll also add that during the early days - particularly the time between the
incorporation and starting operations, those involved in the startup were
focused on getting the organization up and going; feeding the necessary
paper monsters, getting documents filed and so forth. I doubt anyone at the
time would have described it as open.
ARIN, however, is blessed :) with a lot more folks watching than we had...
Give'em a bit of breathing room. Let Kim and her folks get the paper work
done, the membership forms ready, the online info set up, and I expect that
after they have been running a year, they will have a lot more time to deal
openness issues - as a membership driven organization, by definition, it
will happen.
For now, I believe the most important thing to do is not rock the boat and
slow things down even more. Let's focus on discussing policy changes that
can be submitted to the advisory council when it opens up shop on pagan,
and let the folks doing the organizing do their thing
--
Charles T. Smith, Jr.
President - ISP/C
cts at vec.net
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 19:24:44 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 19:24:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net>
Message-ID:
Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin.
David McClure of the association of on line professionals has been ranting
against arin for months. What's more I submit that mcClure's organization
is irrelevant to the ISP industry.
Next point. Elgin ought to learn who to spell John Currans name
correctly! It is not spelled Currin.
Next point. "levy fees on ISPs and others who register addresses"???
Whose he kidding? this is not dns. you do not register addresses....and
he ignores the fact that the ticket to enter arin if you don't get an
IP block is only a 1000 bucks.
Next point: InterNic is NOT the current registrar of domain names - thus
Elgin's statement that "industry sources do not believe its domain
registration fees would go down enough to substantially offset the new
ARIN costs" is rather ludicrous.
next point: mcclure thinks he knows better than than NSI lawyers what the
IRS will approve by way of a non profit....be interesting to know what his
qualifications are for that.
next point: Elgin must have been talking to jim fleming because he talks
about off setting arins costs with DNS registration fees. This is a false
assertion. When arin's transition is finished at the beginning of next
year it will be financially on its own. Elgin hasn't figured out that we
are talking about an entity not owned operated and controled by NSI.
next point: the only outsider besides mcClure with any cAution about arin
quoted by name is PSI's tony kelly - director of corporate marketing. beg
pardon but i question kelly's standing to be an authoratative arin critic.
bill schrader the PSI founder and CEO....yes. kelly no.
Larry we understand you want you PI 19/ but please choose you articles
that claim to show that things are rotten within ARIN more carefully.
Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
> >From
>
> However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as
> outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new
> blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization.
>
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 19:57:19 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 18:57:19 -0500
Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath
was Re: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net>
At 07:24 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin.
...
>Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath.
... sig
>On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
>
>> >From
>>
>> However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as
>> outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new
>> blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization.
Gordon, says, in part:
"It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection
of the Board of Trustees, however it is equally imperative that the
selection of trustees be a well-thought out process that would not
jeopardize the viability of the management of ARIN and would be fair to all
members."
Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are
qualified enough to be on the initial board. Further, if the phrase in the
above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board,
correct?
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 20:32:19 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding etc
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net>
Message-ID:
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
> At 07:24 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin.
> ...
> >Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath.
> ... sig
> >On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
> >
> >> >From
> >>
> >> However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as
> >> outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new
> >> blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization.
Thanks for giving an opportunity to quote on the above
this is also ignorant pontification if it comes from elgin's keyboard.
"new blood and fresh ideas" this is absolutely irrelavnt to the process
of scaling the internet and making it continue to run.
It does take some technical expertise to solve these problems and although
i sure as hell do not have the technical expertise in my own head to
contribute anything original to that side of the probvlem, i do have
enough expertise to distinguish substance from smoke. we have gotten
plenty of substance from justin, ken and jeremy porter and others. so in
that respect i am not worried. But the smoke at the moment if stiffling.
>
> Gordon, says, in part:
>
> "It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection
> of the Board of Trustees, however it is equally imperative that the
> selection of trustees be a well-thought out process that would not
> jeopardize the viability of the management of ARIN and would be fair to all
> members."
>
> Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are
> qualified enough to be on the initial board.
well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of
center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself
an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants
aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants
don't have the expertise!!
Further, if the phrase in the
> above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board,
> correct?
>
>
I tried to find the language about equally balanced and
couldn't.....perhaps its there and one had then better define it
you can have balance from CLUEFUL people.....they MUST be clueful and if
they are not then balance becomes irrelevant....
cluefulness in this industry counts every bit as much as money and
lawyers..... I
HOPE you will soon understand this......
meanwhile I have work
to do.
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 21:07:28 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 20:07:28 -0500
Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath
was Re: Experts question funding etc
In-Reply-To:
References: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709200728.00b3869c@texoma.net>
At 08:32 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>"new blood and fresh ideas" this is absolutely irrelavnt to the process
>of scaling the internet and making it continue to run.
interesting view ...
>> "It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection
>> of the Board of Trustees
>well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of
>center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself
>an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants
>aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants
>don't have the expertise!!
>
>Further, if the phrase in the
>> above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board,
>> correct?
>>
>I tried to find the language about equally balanced and
>couldn't.....perhaps its there and one had then better define it
Then maybe the board makeup should be changed to be equally reflective of
the desires of the membership, maybe some industry leaders who represents
new blood (taken from this pool of peasants [your words, not mine], listed
in alphabetical order) like Karl Denninger, Avi Freedman, Justin Newton,
Robert Shearing, Ronald Yokubaitis, plus an unnamed economist and an open
market specialist, ...
Would the addition of a few of these [peasants] or equally qualified other
[peasants] make the board more balanced?
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 21:26:37 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 21:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding etc
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709200728.00b3869c@texoma.net>
Message-ID:
some of the people you mentioned would i believe make good advisory
council/board members......you will not drag me into saying which ones.
an open market expert and economist if i recall your labels correctly have
no damned place being involved with policy making for the organization.
I am outta here...having real work to do......thgis conversation is
beginning to remind me of one with Fleming.....simply doesn't pay to
attempt one....
**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From scharf at bb.rc.vix.com Wed Jul 9 21:53:08 1997
From: scharf at bb.rc.vix.com (Jerry Scharf)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 18:53:08 -0700
Subject: post to one list please
Message-ID: <199707100153.SAA22740@bb.rc.vix.com>
OK kids, this is not hard. If it is a global alloctaion issue, like who
should get PI space, it belongs on pagan. If you want to talk about the
constitution of ARIN BOT, post it to naipr. If you want to talk about
introducing financial measures to allocation, post it to piara. If
something changes, move it, don't expand it. While you're at it, you
can strip off all the other adressees that you already know are on the
list.
Jim is hopeless and we all know it. If you can't manage to take the time
to edit headers, you are not doing your position well by being a pain in
my mailbox. Getting two copies of each message for the last several days
is like feeding people (at least me) grouchy pills.
jerry
From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Thu Jul 10 00:42:30 1997
From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID:
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
>
> @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently
> @ utilize address space.
>
> How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ?
Probably by examining their .procmailrc. I guess I don't qualify yet. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jul 10 10:09:11 1997
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:09:11 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com>; from Alec H. Peterson on Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 06:31:45PM -0400
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <19970710100911.30181@kurgan.hilander.com>
On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 06:31:45PM -0400, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> >
> > Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
> > people afford it?
>
> You mean the people who will _need_ it, like the backbone providers?
>
> I certainly so.
^hope
Alec
--
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. |
|Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. |
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 12:17:18 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:17:18 -0500
Subject: What to do with the money...
Message-ID: <01BC8DEB.FF46EB00@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 10, 1997 1:05 PM, Geoff Huston[SMTP:gih at telstra.net] wrote:
@
@ So far so good.
@
@ But what the hell do you do with the money that's collected?
@
@ (and "Add to the NSF/NSI Internet Infrastructure Fund" is not considered
@ a valid answer!)
@
This is the Internet. To apply "old school" approaches to
this medium can be deadly and does not serve the community
here. As an example, many people are used to placing checks
into little white envelopes and sending them to a central "taxing"
body, where the checks are deposited and people are paid to
keep track of the money.
In some cases, such as the ISOC, people are also paid to
fly around to exotic vacation spots (with their spouses) and
they use the money to raise more money. This is all very
"old school" and the traditional way. (Of course, for people
who want to take an early retirement from the real world
and travel, it is a great deal.)
With the Internet it might be better to develop systems
where money does not need to be "collected" but only
VERIFIED. What better tool to use to verify the collection
then cross-referenced web sites complete with scanned
documents showing that one party paid another money
and the other accepted it.
In a situation like the IPv4 address space, there is a pressing
need to pass the "ownership" or stewardship of large pieces
of the space to private parties who can then help to manage the
space. In my opinion, there is a very simple way of doing
this AND many needy people, charities and universities
will benefit....
==== Proposal ====
I propose that the IPv4 address space be broken into
clean /16 blocks, not for routing, not for owership, but
for trusteeship.
I also propose that each /16 block require a "minimum"
annual DONATION of the equivalent of one U.S. cent
for each IP address. This is $655.36 per year.
I further propose that the delegate (trustee) of each block
be required to provide VERIFICATION that at least the
minimum donation was made to some charity, school,
non-profit organization, etc. and that this verification be
proven via publicly available cross-references on the WWW
which clearly show hard copy (scanned) proof that the
donation was made. (Photos of presentations of the
checks would also be an added benefit)
The delegation of the /16 in the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone
would be made by one of 256 (or less) verification
organizations that would volunteer to track the 256
possible delegations in each of the /8 zones. TXT
records would be added to the zone files to refer
to the web sites where the donation verfication can
be found.
====================
As an example, there would be a verifcation organization
that would be delegated 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. That
organization would delegate to the various trusteeships
in that zone. When a donation is verified for a /16
delegation (let's say 192.160.0.0) then the proper
name server entries would be made for 160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
With this approach, no money needs to be sent to
a central organization that uses the money to send
people on vacations around the world. Instead, the
money can be directed by each trusteeship in a
distributed manner and directly to the people that
will benefit.
Yes, there is potential for corruption. Yes, people
can write checks and never send them. Yes, I am
sure we can all figure out one thousand ways that
people will cheat the system. Instead, it might be
more productive to work on ways to educate both
the donors and recipients so that an open system
is developed with peer review and general good will
guiding the process.
Thanks for your time...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 16:17:04 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:17:04 -0500
Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment
Message-ID: <01BC8E0D.7E2675A0@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 11, 1997 2:28 PM, J.D. Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at priori.net] wrote:
@ On Jul 11, "Alec H. Peterson" wrote:
@
@ > Again, as David pointed out there are other countries besides the US
@ > as far as the 'net is concerned, and this means that it is quite
@ > possible to have very long haul T1s, which have considerable latency
@ > across them.
@
@ Just to bring this back around, I'd like to point out that
@ Robert's Working Draft (which started this thread) is intended
@ for ARIN, and it's doubtful that ARIN will be assigning much
@ address space to countries beyond North America.
@
ARIN's web site claims otherwise...
it includes AFRICA and SOUTH AMERICA
Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide
Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play
since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN).
@ So, while all these points would certainly be valid if anyone
@ were to suggest requiring two T1's to qualify for a /19 anywhere
@ in the entire world, they're less important when we're talking
@ about policies specific to the North American continent.
@
When you are talking about "policies", especially in
the U.S., you have to cover a wide range of topics
that go well beyond the technical matters.
For example, the NSF, NSI and ARIN have to be very
concerned about EEO and Affirmative Action issues.
You may have to work those into your policies.
@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
"The Company's business included commercial and
government contracts awarded to the Company on
a competitive basis, including government contracts
that were awarded to the Company based partially
upon the Company's then minority-owned status."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 19:42:11 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:42:11 -0500
Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment
Message-ID: <01BC8E2A.25B7BBA0@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 11, 1997 5:38 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] wrote:
@
@ >Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide
@ >Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play
@ >since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN).
@
@ The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN
@ with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That
@ does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN.
@
That is interesting, because according to Gordon Cook[1]
NSI is "spending a million dollars to cut arin loose".
Also...
According to documents that NSI filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, NSI has already incorporated
ARIN....
ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt
...ARIN is beyond the proposal state...
although the details of the investors, management and
employees have not been disclosed. The NSI people handling
domain name registrations have evidently moved to a new
facility, leaving the IP address allocation people behind.
Someone must be paying the rent in that location....
[1] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----------
From: Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM
To: Eric Weisberg
Cc: Jim Fleming; pagan at apnic.net; 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR'
Subject: Re: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans...
Eric sez:
I strongly object to the way ARIN's board
is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That
annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT
members will come in the future.
>From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most
definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage
the NSI president is on it?
Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not
"grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better
composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage.
nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose
so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off.
Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs
image in my opinion.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 21:03:00 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:03:00 -0500
Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment
Message-ID: <01BC8E35.6FF884A0@webster.unety.net>
Is the ARIN web site incorrect ?
@@@@
"The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a proposed
non-profit organization which would be established for the purpose
of administration and registration of Internet Protocol (IP) numbers to
the geographical areas currently managed by Network Solutions (InterNIC).
Those areas include, but are not limited to, North America, South America,
South Africa and the Caribbean."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
On Friday, July 11, 1997 3:24 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@ >
@ Hopefully there will be an AfriNIC and a Latin NIC but i can't say when
@ these will be operational. Until then ARIN and RIPE will allocate space
@ to those regions, so we need to keep them in mind when discussing ARIN
@ issues.
@
@ Kim
@
@ > well kim hubbard can speak to the details better than I but plans for a
@ > latin american and african registry have been announced.
@ >
@ > ************************************************************************
@ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
@ > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
@ > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
@ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
@ > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
@ > ************************************************************************
@ >
@ >
@ > On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
@ >
@ > > On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 05:33:12PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
@ > > > but we will soon have a latin american registry presumably with its own
@ > > > policies.
@ > >
@ > > I don't understand what gives you that idea...
@ > >
@ > > Alec
@ > >
@ > > --
@ > > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
@ > > |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. |
@ > > |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. |
@ > > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
@ > >
@ >
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From cook at NETAXS.COM Fri Jul 11 22:28:22 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:28:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN was RE: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
When Michael Dillon said:
The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN
with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That
does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN.
I was taken aback because this conflicted with what I had earlier been
told. I checked with several sources who have first hand knowledge and
have assured me that the following statement is accurate
NSI, at the December (1996) IETF, offered to provide TRANSITION funding of
the startup and staffing of ARIN. They legally committed themselves to do
this as a part of their year 5 program plan with NSF. They are now
carrying out that commitment. The costs involved will be significantly
greater that the $300K total figure in Michael dillon's post here this
evening. These costs include ZERO US government funds.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> >Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide
> >Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play
> >since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN).
>
> The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN
> with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That
> does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN.
>
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
>
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************
>
>
From michael at priori.net Fri Jul 11 23:33:31 1997
From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:33:31 -0700
Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN was RE: Working Draft with Kim
Hubbard Amendment
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
>I was taken aback because this conflicted with what I had earlier been
>told. I checked with several sources who have first hand knowledge and
>have assured me that the following statement is accurate
>
>NSI, at the December (1996) IETF, offered to provide TRANSITION funding of
>the startup and staffing of ARIN. They legally committed themselves to do
>this as a part of their year 5 program plan with NSF. They are now
>carrying out that commitment. The costs involved will be significantly
>greater that the $300K total figure in Michael dillon's post here this
>evening. These costs include ZERO US government funds.
I've got to learn to stop trusting the press :-)
Now that I read over http://www.emap.com/cwi/187/187news6.html again I see
that they have ARIN and IANA all garbled up together.
*sigh*
********************************************************
Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
********************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 12 14:10:52 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:10:52 -0500
Subject: Thom Stark on ARIN
Message-ID: <01BC8EC5.0715C520@webster.unety.net>
Thom Stark has some interesting comments on ARIN...
@@@ http://www.starkrealities.com/@inet039.html
...
"ARIN, basically, is a mechanism designed to permit NSI
to jettison its responsibility for assigning IP network numbers,
(an activity which makes no money for its owner, Science
Applications International Corporation, and which requires
a highly-skilled staff) allowing it to concentrate, on registering
domain names (an activity which is largely automated and
which makes SAIC lots and lots of money). It is also a
harbinger of a sweeping change in how Internet administration
and governance are financed and from whence they draw their
legitimacy."
...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From justin at priori.net Tue Jul 15 02:54:59 1997
From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:54:59 -0700
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com>
References: <33C3DFD2.63C04A04@digitalink.com>
<01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
<199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
<3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970714235459.030760c4@priori.net>
At 03:42 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>
>>
>>If enough people had a reason to get a thousand people on a bus, you can
>>bet your ass GMC would be building one. I represent a business that
>>wants to have 24 hour uninterrupted connectivity to the net, because
>>that is our business. The only way I can come close to that is
>>multi-homing with multiple providers. Unless I get at least a /19, I
>>cannot do this casue I will be filtered because Cisco's router's can't
>>handle enough routes to give everyone PI space. It's not Cisco's fault
>>that they can't keep up with the growth of the Internet, at least I
>>wasn't saying that.
>>
>>But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is
>>because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If
>>this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24?
>>
>
>Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
>people afford it?
When I need them I will be able to. If not, well, I need a new industry to
be in, or a new pricing model, or a new vendor. Your herring, its red again ;)
**************************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
**************************************************************
From wolodkin at digitalink.com Fri Jul 11 07:04:01 1997
From: wolodkin at digitalink.com (Vince Wolodkin)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:04:01 -0400
Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ?
References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net>
<199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
<3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com>
<3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.2.32.19970710180508.006b2154@nico.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <33C61321.C1599C9@digitalink.com>
I actually asked the same question in my *first* post regarding charging
for IP. I don't trust anyone enough to be collecting the money. The
only semi-reasonable thing I could think of would be to regularly
appoint an international charitable organization to
collect/receive/disburse the monies as they saw fit. This of course has
its own problems.
Any ideas what to do with collected monies and who would do the
collecting?
Vince Wolodkin
Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> >> Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of
> >> people afford it?
> >>
> >> - paul
> >
> >There's the rub:-) And this is the crux of the matter. I hate to start
> >recommending charging per IP address, or charging for table entries but
> >that may well become necessary. I mean, it is important enough to us to
> >be willing to PAY for it. I don't need or even want a /19, I just want
> >to be routeable so I can go through 2 or three different provider's.
> >
> >Paying seems to be the easiest way to sort the mess out, though it
> >wouldn't conserve address space well unless you charge everyone who ever
> >got an IP assignment and encourage them to renumber or pay the price. A
> >lot of class B's behind firewalls would be turned in right away.
>
> Gee this sounds familiar. Yes you can use a charging mechanism to
> undertake distribution function. Indeed you can get most of the
> bits and pieces working in tune with engineering requirements.
>
> And, as you say, it will sort out a lot of this mess as you are using a payment
> function to do the task that is currently being undertaken
> using purely administrative functions which themselves tend to raise the ire
> of many in terms of consistency and appropriateness of the
> adminstrative function.
>
> So far so good.
>
> But what the hell do you do with the money that's collected?
>
> (and "Add to the NSF/NSI Internet Infrastructure Fund" is not considered
> a valid answer!)
>
> Geoff
From michael at priori.net Fri Jul 11 18:38:54 1997
From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:38:54 -0700
Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment
In-Reply-To: <01BC8E0D.7E2675A0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID:
>Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide
>Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play
>since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN).
The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN
with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That
does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN.
********************************************************
Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
********************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 19:12:32 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:12:32 -0500
Subject: Like Mother Nature in Simplicity
Message-ID: <01BC8E26.01448360@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 11, 1997 1:45 PM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at vrx.net] wrote:
@ At 07:31 PM 7/8/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
@ >Why not give RIPE a /8 for distribution to US customers who feel they want
@ >to do business with RIPE and just end the geographical monoply?
@ >
@ >Likewise for APNIC.
@ >
@ >Submit a PO to RIPE for 2000 ECU and get the /19.
@ >
@ >What could be simpler?
@ >
@ >Everything but zip code of RIPE customer has already been approved.
@
@ Wasnt this the logic that prompted IAHC's DNS plan ? I find it curious
@ that the poeple here who argued FOR this method with the DNS will
@ now poo poo this idea to death.
@
That is because they do not want any alternatives
to ARIN. They want a monopoly on the North American
IP address allocation market.
Of course, it will not be called a monopoly, it will just
be the only organization that has any inventory of
IP address resources.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 12 16:33:22 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 15:33:22 -0500
Subject: information
Message-ID: <01BC8ED8.EF7F2AA0@webster.unety.net>
On Saturday, July 12, 1997 3:27 PM, Ricardo Cast[SMTP:RCast at consein.com] wrote:
@ 1060, Estado Miranda, Caracas, Venezuela
@ e-mail: rcast at consein.com
@
@ If you need more information just let me know.
@
@ Thanks ....
@
@
ARIN claims to be handling South America
Can you give people an update on how you
see NICs evolving for South America ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From 100736.3602 at COMPUSERVE.COM Sun Jul 13 17:02:48 1997
From: 100736.3602 at COMPUSERVE.COM (K. N. Cukier)
Date: 13 Jul 97 17:02:48 EDT
Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN [clarification from CWI]
Message-ID: <970713210248_100736.3602_EHV64-2@CompuServe.COM>
As the author of the article, I'll clarify:
Michael Dillon wrote:
>The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN
>with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That
>does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN.
And later wrote:
>I've got to learn to stop trusting the press :-)
>Now that I read over http://www.emap.com/cwi/187/187news6.html again I see
>that they have ARIN and IANA all garbled up together.
>*sigh*
The article (posted at the bottom of this msg) doesn't confuse ARIN and IANA.
However, due to an unfortunate editing error, Jon Postel is incorrectly referred
to in one place as the head of ARIN. Other than that, the story is pretty clear.
En bref: In an interview in late June, Ira Magaziner said NASA and Dept. of
Energy will provide IANA with temporary, partial funding of $250,000 for 12
months. Postel in late June said he was aware of the decision, but had not yet
received the funds. Separately, Kim Hubbard said that ARIN had already budgeted
$50,000 to partially fund IANA (a move that was expected due to the current
funds RIPE NCC and APNIC are giving).
Any reader ever wishing clarification on an article is always free to contact me
directly, at kenc at cwi.emap.com. (I follow naipr regularly, so there is no need
for msgs here to be duplicated, and cc-ed to me.)
Kenneth Neil Cukier
Senior Editor
Communications Week International
Paris, France
--------------------
Below is the article, which appeared in the 30 June 1997 issue of Communications
Week International:
US backs plan for Net to go it alone
By Kenneth Neil Cukier
KUALA LUMPUR -- After months of uncertainty over its policy direction, the
United States government has moved to promote Internet self-governance on a
international scale.
Last week the U.S. National Science Foundation approved the creation of the
long-delayed American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), which will oversee
the allocation of Internet Protocol addresses to Internet service providers and
large corporations.
"I'm happy that this long and careful process is finally over," said Scott
Bradner of Harvard University, and a trustee of ARIN. The body's creation was
stalled due to a White House taskforce's concerns over how ARIN would function.
The U.S. government is also set to reverse an earlier decision and provide
interim funding for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the body
which oversees global IP number allocations.
Ira Magaziner, special advisor to President Clinton, said the Department of
Energy and NASA will jointly provide $250,000 to partially fund 12 months of
operation until a formal Internet-based funding model can be established. "If
the Internet is to flourish, it must be international," Magaziner said.
Jon Postel the head of ARIN [sic, head of IANA -- KNC], said he was pleased with
the funding, but emphasized it was for a "transition period" until the bottom-up
structure of IANA was established, based on the regional IP registries in
Europe, Asia, the United States, and possibly elsewhere. Since IANA deals with
other network matters, such as domain name data and standards, Postel said other
groups that use IANA services, such as domain name registries, might also be
appropriate sources of funding.
Kim Hubbard, the current head of the InterNIC, the body which now allocates U.S.
IP addresses [sic, also IP addresses in the Americas, and elsewhere... -- KNC],
and who is expected to head ARIN, said the organization has already budged
$50,000 to support IANA.
Meanwhile, The U.S. Department of Commerce will this week issue a 45-day
"request for comments" on Internet domain names, and the International Ad Hoc
Committee's proposal to create a shared-registry model. Magaziner said the
administration "will try to form a position that will encourage the movement to
a more private, competitive system for domain name allocation." He also said
that the IAHC's aims "are goals that we [the U.S. administration] share."
The U.S. move to reopen the issue will not jeoprodize the IAHC plan, said David
Maher, the interim chairman of the Policy Oversight Committee [sic, Maher is the
chairman of the interim POC, or iPOC -- KNC] charged with implementing the
changes.
end
[Nota Bene: It is extremely rare that errors such as these appear in CWI. In
this case, I wrote it at 2am the night of layout, and a copy editor in London
typed in a few mistakes as the piece was cut to 400 words from the 800 filed.
Apologies to sources and readers.... -- KNC]
From cook at NETAXS.COM Sun Jul 13 17:24:10 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:24:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN [clarification from CWI]
In-Reply-To: <970713210248_100736.3602_EHV64-2@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID:
has jon postel finally received the magaziner promised gov't
funds mentioned in ken's article?
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 22:56:04 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 21:56:04 -0500
Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? -
Welcome to discussions)
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715215604.016e2d58@texoma.net>
At 08:00 PM 7/15/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>My take is that he could do what ever he wanted.
>But that 1. IANA would not give him any new numbers.
>
> 2. he could go to court and try to get a judge of order him to be
>given a class A.
>
> 3.how's he going to warranty the nmbers he assigns? Do you think
>any of the major isps would be willing to route them? I don't.
>
> 4. In such a case he could go back to court and try to get the DOJ
>to order them to be routed.
>
> 5. a yes answer would be an agreement on the part of DOJ to
>regulate the internet.
>
> 6. the idea that any single country could successfully regulate
>the global internet is unlikely.
This thought process leaves out several possible "regular" solutions,
including the possibility that the IANA is willing or could be convinced to
conduct an experiment (check out the RIPE 62/8 experiment, e.g.) based on
the premise there is a market solution to the "routers will fall over"
problem.
>From an email posted to NANOG by Sean Doran:
>From: "Sean M. Doran"
>To: michael at priori.net, nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: Aggressive route flap dampening
>Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:44:28 -0700
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
...
>I have explained a couple ideas for adjusting the "N" above
>based on a cost + profit charging scheme. Fundamentally, if you
>want to have less stringent antidampening applied to your prefix(es),
>you pay money. If you don't want to pay money then you do the
>normal things: keep very stable or aggregate into a stable block.
>
>The "N" should be reduced (or the time period lengthened) and the
>cost of increasing that ratio should increase with the length of
>the prefix, in order to encourage topologically sound aggregation
>either through traditional means or through NAT and NAT-like boxes
>such as the one described and implemented by Paul Vixie.
>
>The point at which the price of increasing "N" becomes infinite
>would be up to the marketplace based on available and deployed
>technology. Whether or not /24s or /25s or /26s could be seen
>in the important parts of the Internet was the topic of a series
>of long arguments during walks along some beaches in Southern
>California somoe time ago. Some say categorically no, that is,
>you could never guarantee universal reachability for very long
>prefixes indefinitely. On the other hand, a model which allows
>for flexible adjustment of dampening policy applied against specific
>chunks of address space is very attractive, and seems tractable.
>
>Micropayments accompanying NLRI, with payees being attached to
>prefix announcements much in the same way BGP community attributes
>are, is an attractive scheme for me. It would then be up to various
>providers to adjust dampening policy based on these payment attributes
>much as routing announcement policies are adjusted. (cf RFC 1997-1998)
>
>There are bookkeeping difficulties involved that should be familiar
>to most telephone companies who do international settlements, but
>which may be perceived as challenging to small fry used to
>an environment with no settlements, and annoying to people who are
>unusued to debugging flappy networks.
>
>(One could also think of this as a small fee for the equivalent
>of typing "clear ip bgp damp prefix mask" at routers, which think
>should already be charged for.)
>
>There are other (mostly bilateral) flap-settlement/dampening-modification
>schemes which have been talked about here and there (piara comes to mind),
>but the micropayments scheme has the advantages that the footwork needs
>to be done by the announcers longer prefixes to determine whether they
>want or need to pay particular providers for having their routes remain
>visible (or be visible at all).
>
>In other words, this is an easy way of making it *possible* to announce
>even /32s nearly globally, although doing so obviously could be very
expensive
>and certainly would involve determining which of the potentially
>large numbers of networks would need to be paid to make the /32s
>in question reachable in their routing domains.
>
>[long prefix]
>| >announcements were responsible for the majority of the routing
>| >instability, and that simply blocking these announcements at
>| >an arbitrary prefix length would be the simplest way to 'fix'
>| >the problem.
>
>It fixed two problems simultaneously: firstly, there is lots of flap
>and flap is most irritating when relatively unimportant (and statistically
>small is likely to be less important than large) NLRI is responsible for
>a disproportionally large amount of it. Secondly, there are lots of
>networks which really ought to be aggregated. When a single up/down or
>up/down/up flap makes the network unusable for an hour or two, people
>generally become motivated either to be very very stable or to aggregate
>even adjacent aggregatable /24s in order to suffer fewer disconnectivities.
>
>| >This may be true, but an alternate method of
>| >approach for this problem could solve all of this squabbling
>| >once and for all, at least in regard to this issue.
>
>Sure. It's a race between the potential buckets of revenues
>in getting a flap/route settlement scheme in place in the face
>of people screaming who have long prefixes and unstable networks --
>in a sense _charging for the consumption of a currently scarce resource_ --
>and eliminating the scarcity by doing aggressive large scale
>involuntary NAT on one's peers (or customers or both), aggressive
>proxy aggregation, and the like.
>
> Sean.
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 23:05:03 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:05:03 -0500
Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? -
Welcome to discussions)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970715215541.016e2d58@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715220503.016e2d58@texoma.net>
At 09:55 PM 7/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>At 08:00 PM 7/15/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>> 4. In such a case he could go back to court and try to get the DOJ
>>to order them to be routed.
>>
>> 5. a yes answer would be an agreement on the part of DOJ to
>>regulate the internet.
>>
>> 6. the idea that any single country could successfully regulate
>>the global internet is unlikely.
To points 5 and 6, likewise NSI/InterNIC is CURRENTLY regulating the
Internet. Consider the following email fragment from Daniel Karrenberg,
General Manager of Ripe:
Posted-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 02:30:57 -0500 (CDT)
To: Larry Vaden
Subject: Re: Bitte, eine frage fur zie aus Texas ...
From: Daniel Karrenberg
X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:29:54 +0200
Sender: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
> Larry Vaden writes:
...
> Would a small ISP (currently holding a /23 and a /21, with orders on hand
> to reach > 50% utilization of a /19, Cisco 7206 with 128MB, etc.) be
forced
> to go upstream for provider dependent IP space?=20
No. We do not do Internet regulation here.
> Vielen Danke und Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen,
Keine Ursache, but please send further questions to .
Daniel Karrenberg
From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 23:56:58 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:56:58 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715225658.0103173c@texoma.net>
A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common
interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly
from the IANA.
In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)"
space, but rather PI space.
This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a
"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the
normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI
space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and likely.
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 09:16:11 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:16:11 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970716080440.006c4f44@lint.cisco.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970715225716.0103173c@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net>
Tony,
Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area.
Yakov Rekhter has supplied the pointer to ftpeng.cisco.com under
/ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt (PowerPoint).
Thanks,
Larry
---30---
At 08:04 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>This concept is not new -- Tony Li presented the concept
>of ISP confederations last year.
>
>- paul
>
>At 10:57 PM 07/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>
>>A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common
>>interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly
>>from the IANA.
>>
>>In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)"
>>space, but rather PI space.
>>
>>This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a
>>"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the
>>normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI
>>space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and
>likely.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 16 09:22:55 1997
From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 06:22:55 PDT
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 97 08:16:11 CDT."
<3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <199707161322.GAA23861@puli.cisco.com>
> Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area.
See Internet Draft draft-li-ispac-00.txt.
Yakov.
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 10:43:49 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:43:49 -0500
Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? - Welcome to discussions)
Message-ID: <01BC91CC.C4615400@webster.unety.net>
On Tuesday, July 15, 1997 4:21 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@ here is one other argument:
@
@ - do you want two or more registeries who live
@ off of their fees compeeting with each other? the tempation
@ would sure be there to reduce the requirements and make addresses
@ easer to get - and starting down the road of running out of addresses
@ again
@
Are you implying that ARIN, APNIC and RIPE will
be fixing prices to make sure that they will not
have to compete and will continue to eat ?
Also..do you have any financial interests in these matters ?
@ -- as to your questions about restraint of trade, I thought I handled them
@ in my scenario. it is a possibility and one that can in my opinion be
@ settled only in court. If larry is unwlling to sit back and give arin a
@ chance, he should take matters to court. his present scenario looks to me
@ like an effort to build an IP number version of ALTERNIC.
@
@ in my opinion unjustified and a waste of time.
@
The AlterNIC is just one of several Root Name Server
Confederations. Why not build ARIN and several other alternatives ?
Maybe Canada would like to get into the Registry Industry ?
Is Viriginia the only State allowed to "tax" the Internet ?
Why don't you report on where you stand with ARIN...?
Are you in the U.S. or Ruissia ? Where is the planning being done ?
What is your role in the planning. When you refer to "we" in
your reports, does that include the ARIN Board members ?
In one of your reports[1] you claim that making ARIN part of
a public review process via the "Federal Registry" would "kill ARIN".
Why would having something reviewed by the public kill it ?
Is there something that is being hidden ?
[1] @@@ http://www.cookreport.com/06.04.shtml
"We passed this data along to the appropriate technical leadership
of the net, went to Russia and waited for more news. When it came
it was that a succession of technical folk had done the educating
called for but that amazingly ARIN had been thrown a new curve.
The feds were now insisting it be announced in the Federal Registry
before it was formed. We were told that this new delay would kill
ARIN, and that worse, it was doing nothing to solve the authority
problems of the IANA."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 09:50:51 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:50:51 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <199707161322.GAA23861@puli.cisco.com>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716085051.00d931bc@texoma.net>
At 06:22 AM 7/16/97 PDT, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>> Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area.
>
>See Internet Draft draft-li-ispac-00.txt.
The original copy at ds0.internic.net has been deleted due to expiration,
but the original text apparently still lives at
.
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 10:09:13 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:09:13 -0500
Subject: ISP Address Coalition (ISPAC) (was a 2nd potential solution)
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716090913.00d934f0@texoma.net>
This idea (ISPAC, pronounced "ice pack"), was originally proposed by Tony
Li as an Internet Draft (draft-li-ispac-00.txt), which has been deleted due
to expiration. It can be found, however, at
http://www.globecom.net/(nobg,sv)/ietf/draft/draft-li-ispac-00.shtml.
In addition, Yakov Rekhter writes of a PowerPoint presentation:
"There is also a presentation on this topic from Tony and myself that
was made at the last year IEPG meeting. The presentation is available
via anonymous ftp from ftpeng.cisco.com under /ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt
(PowerPoint)."
---30---
At 11:13 PM 7/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common
>interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly
>from the IANA.
>
>In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)"
>space, but rather PI space.
>
>This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a
>"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the
>normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI
>space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and
likely.
>
>If you are interested in contributing to the discussion, please send e-mail
>to nair-founders-request at texoma.net with a message body of "subscribe".
>
>
From michael at STB.INFO.COM Wed Jul 16 13:01:00 1997
From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 10:01 PDT
Subject: How many routes do ISP's and backbones announce to other backbones?
Message-ID:
I have an idea that might solve the routing, prefix size, and router entry
size problem for good, and would allow even /31's to be published with
today's routers. But it's based on an assumption that I need to get
answered:
How many CIDR route entries do the backbones announce to other backbones?
I.e, how many routes does sprint maintain in its routers for uunet/alternet?
How many does mci maintain for (oh, foo, I know that there's 7 big ones).
How many routes does sprint maintain in its routers for the ISP's that
connect to sprint? For the ISP's that are connected to another backbone
(or would that be included in the previous paragraph, which I suspect to be
the case)?
Finally, how does a multi-homed site, meaning two connections to two
different ISPs, using two different backbone providers, actually work
in practice in today's internet?
Michael
From gherbert at CRL.COM Wed Jul 16 16:32:02 1997
From: gherbert at CRL.COM (George Herbert)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:32:02 -0700
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:16:11 CDT."
<3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <199707162032.NAA17248@mail.crl.com>
Also vaguely similar to the idea I suggested some time ago
of allocating some large blocks for geographical area based
small provider blocks. Things like this are not really new,
it's just that nobody's liked them enough to push one forwards
all the way to operational status as an experimental demonstration.
-george william herbert
gherbert at crl.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 18:19:15 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:19:15 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
Message-ID: <01BC920C.63CEEEA0@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:28 PM, Andrew Partan[SMTP:asp at partan.com] wrote:
@ > Here's a copy. Please note that the existence of this work does NOT
@ > constitute unequivocal endorsement of the concept. There are significant
@ > business issues which are intrinsic to the model which would have to be
@ > resolved on a case by case basis. The technical footing is sound.
@
@ Please note that in order for Coalition or Geographic based address
@ allocation to work really well, you have to have restrictions on
@ your topology.
@
For many small ISPs, "geo-netric" issues are resolved very close to home.
Their main problem is that they get tied to an upstream provider
and therefore their customers get tied. Significant changes in the
relationship with that upstream provider now impact their customers.
In the Coalition approach, ISPs have to understand they will be
tied to the coalition. This seems like less of a problem for ISPs than
being tied to an upstream provider.
Of course, depending on the stability and greed factor of coalitions,
the ISPs may wish they were tied to an upstream provider. This is
one of the major concerns about organizations such as ARIN.
Supposedly, ARIN is being "given" some unknown /8 delegations
to manage. The companies that have allocations in those blocks
have not been given any say about this. What happens if ARIN
decides to enact policies and change companies allocations or
charge high fees ? Small ISPs will probably have as much say as
they did with the $50 domain taxes and the future of .COM, .NET
and .ORG.
@ Addressing works really well when you do it on a topological basis.
@
@ Anyone who does not follow this needs to educate themselves in the
@ basic physics of routing and how it applies to CIDR based allocations
@ and keeping routing tables small.
Many people feel that the routing tables can be reduced
in size with better (and more fair) policies. Without experiments
to prove and document this, people will never know.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 18:44:16 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:44:16 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
Message-ID: <01BC920F.E1F31420@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 16, 1997 10:28 AM, Tony Li[SMTP:tli at juniper.net] wrote:
@
@ In the Coalition approach, ISPs have to understand they will be
@ tied to the coalition. This seems like less of a problem for ISPs than
@ being tied to an upstream provider.
@
@ This is part of what's not clear. If you dislike being tied to an upstream
@ provider, it's because there's insufficient freedom of movement. Being
@ tied to the coalition, in which (presumably) majority rules can be equally
@ oppressive.
@
Yes they can...that is why I point out that ISPs might
wish that they are tied to an upstream or a coalition
of upstream providers....
...or something like IOPS...http://www.iops.org
@ Of course, depending on the stability and greed factor of coalitions,
@ the ISPs may wish they were tied to an upstream provider. This is
@ one of the major concerns about organizations such as ARIN.
@ Supposedly, ARIN is being "given" some unknown /8 delegations
@ to manage. The companies that have allocations in those blocks
@ have not been given any say about this. What happens if ARIN
@ decides to enact policies and change companies allocations or
@ charge high fees ? Small ISPs will probably have as much say as
@ they did with the $50 domain taxes and the future of .COM, .NET
@ and .ORG.
@
@ One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way
@ that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department.
@
Yes, just like people complained about the InterNIC and NSI.....
you saw how far that got...
By the way, recently I heard that ARIN may not qualify as an
IRS non-profit company and someone mentioned that ARIN could
then pursue the IPO route...I guess this depends on how the NSI
IPO does...although the @Home IPO seems to have been a
success...
@ Many people feel that the routing tables can be reduced
@ in size with better (and more fair) policies. Without experiments
@ to prove and document this, people will never know.
@
@ It's quite easy to see the number of routes generated from a clear
@ technical proposal. Experiments to determine basic scalability are not
@ necessary until a scalable proposal is in hand. Especially experiments
@ which in actuality are irrevocable deployment, thinly veiled.
@
Maybe this should be the focus of NAIR ?
Open mailing lists and discussions such as
these are great for preventing "thinly veiled" proposals.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 16 21:43:22 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:43:22 -0400
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970716080440.006c4f44@lint.cisco.com>
<3.0.3.32.19970715225716.0103173c@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716214322.006ba33c@lint.cisco.com>
I believe this is the same presentation that I referred
to which Tony provided.
- paul
At 08:16 AM 07/16/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>Tony,
>
>Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area.
>
>Yakov Rekhter has supplied the pointer to ftpeng.cisco.com under
>/ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt (PowerPoint).
>
>Thanks,
>
>Larry
>
>---30---
>
>At 08:04 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>This concept is not new -- Tony Li presented the concept
>>of ISP confederations last year.
>>
>>- paul
>>
>>At 10:57 PM 07/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote:
>>
>>>A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common
>>>interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly
>>>from the IANA.
>>>
>>>In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)"
>>>space, but rather PI space.
>>>
>>>This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a
>>>"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the
>>>normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI
>>>space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and
>>likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 22:01:09 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:01:09 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <199707162335.QAA09846@chimp.juniper.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net>
At 04:35 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
>
> >One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way
> >that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department.
>
> That didn't work with NSI. An unaccountable monopoly is a bad thing.
>
>First of all, NSI is hardly an unaccountable monopoly. It has some
>supervision and it certainly has customers. Those who object to the way
>that NSI was and is run have not yet made a reasonable and effective case
>against the status quo. Note that 'yelling louder' or' repeating yourself
yet
>again' or 'not listening to others' or 'arguing with me' are neither
>reasonable nor effective.
One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued
reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves
correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut
off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us
`[:((.
It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm
with such a record.
Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a
firm like EDS to do the back office functions.
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 16 16:00:34 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:00:34 +0100
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
References: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33CD2861.2F5C@ix.netcom.com>
Larry,
Larry Vaden wrote:
>
> At 04:35 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> >
> > >One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way
> > >that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department.
> >
> > That didn't work with NSI. An unaccountable monopoly is a bad thing.
> >
> >First of all, NSI is hardly an unaccountable monopoly. It has some
> >supervision and it certainly has customers. Those who object to the way
> >that NSI was and is run have not yet made a reasonable and effective case
> >against the status quo. Note that 'yelling louder' or' repeating yourself
> yet
> >again' or 'not listening to others' or 'arguing with me' are neither
> >reasonable nor effective.
>
> One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued
> reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves
> correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut
> off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us
> `[:((.
>
> It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm
> with such a record.
Couldn't agree more.
>
> Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a
> firm like EDS to do the back office functions.
Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were
me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there
seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One
is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The
other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 23:17:13 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:17:13 -0500
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <33CD2861.2F5C@ix.netcom.com>
References:
<3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716221713.01380b94@texoma.net>
At 09:00 PM 7/16/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>> One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued
>> reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves
>> correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut
>> off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us
>> `[:((.
>>
>> It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm
>> with such a record.
>
> Couldn't agree more.
>>
>> Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a
>> firm like EDS to do the back office functions.
>
> Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were
>me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there
>seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One
>is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The
>other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking.
Actually, the suggestion is a rhetorical one, used to separate the current
results from the expected results. I'd rather use firms like Stan Barber's
academ.com for the back office function. But I speak personally, not for
NAIR.
From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 16 23:32:00 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID:
The bottom line of this message is that, in a phone conversation with me
earlier this evening, NSI Senior Vice President Don Telage said he would
be happy to permit Kim Hubbard to make her own *independent* and
*unreviewed* progress reports regarding the progress of the American
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) weekly or as often as she felt it to
be necessary. These progress reports could be placed on the ARIN web site
and sent by Kim to appropriate mail lists.
Here is what happened to lead up to this unexpected phone conversation.
Dave Farber is a senior member of the Internet community who has run, at
least since 1990, a mail list that he calls Interesting People. I have
been on this list since 1991. Sometime in 1992 Dave goofed and a message
went out that contained the identities of the list members. Less than 200
at the time, but a very impressive collection of high ranking folk from
the media, government, education and the corporate world. My understanding
is that since then the list, which is private, has grown in size to
several thousand - that it has a very international flavor, and agAin very
influential subscribers.
Now one problem with the list is that it is moderated by Dave such that
communication is one way. People send him stuff and ask him to
redistribute. This means that the signal to noise ratio is generally quite
high. But it also means that from time to time some real zingers slip out.
Rebutting them is difficult and usually requires some extended negotiation
with Dave who - with this list - effectively acts as "gate keeper" to the
internet for many many influential people. Such negotiation is something
that, not wanting to take the time, I usually don't do. It is much easier
to publish my rebuttal elsewhere.
Last night Dave published a real zinger. He did this when he took what I
regard as a scurrilous attack on the American Registry for Internet
Numbers by Dave McClure and published it to his
list with the heading "Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The
Netly News." [What he piece had to do with the netly news escapes me.] As
far as I can figure out, McClure is the executive director of something
called the Association of on Line Professionals. (AOP). He has had, what
looks like, a vendetta going against ARIN for most of 1997. McClure's AOP
has no standing what so ever in the internet industry that I am aware of.
(Something confirmed by more than a dozen responses that I have received
to a public query I made earlier today.) And yet Dave apparently took text
from Sky Dayton, the Earthlink CEO, that Sky had received from McClure and
posted it without comment to his Interesting Persons list. In my opinion
from 6 years of reading Dave's list that action means Dave endorses the
comment. When he posts something he doesn't agree with he says so.
I have watched a wide variety of people try to crucify ARIN since February
of this year. Seeing McClure's unsubstantiated accusations go out to a one
way list of influential people largely without independent means of
verifying the data, was a hit below the belt that I felt that ARIN ill
deserved. I let Dave know my displeasure and he said he'd publish a
reasoned rebuttal to his IP list. I hope he finds that this meets those
criteria.
I then made phone calls and sent a bunch of private mail and found out
some very interesting and *totally unexpected* information. There had been
relatively little response from John Curran, Scott Bradner or Randy Bush
on any of the relevant mail lists in answer to many many attacks on ARIN.
Today there was also no great rush to write a rebuttal of the McClure
piece that Dave Farber had posted. Suddenly I got a phone call explaining
why.
I took the information that I was given and called Don Telage at NSI. In a
half hour phone conversation Don told me the following. (1.) The three
CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil
Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI. (2.) This is the "incorporation
board". As soon as legal insurance for the Board is put into place the
incorporation board would meet and select the seven person *proposed*
board listed on the Arin web pages. (3.) This had not yet happened because
they had not yet managed to nail down the necessary legal insurance. As
soon as the policy was in place the new board would be chosen. He thought
thi would happen in less than two weeks but he could not name an exact
date.
I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net
and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN
Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out
of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly.
But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
there might be subsequent revisions.
But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I
responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net
believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent
unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that
NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two
because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their
credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of
McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the
word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it.
For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and
becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a
weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what
had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within
NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be
as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered.
Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to
write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before
she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be
bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked
like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible
because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable,
I can agree to that, said Don.
I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to
them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening
on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the
time to hear my message.
PS -- let me re-emphasize one more thing. ARIN's goal is to achieve
complete financial independence from NSI as soon as possible and in any
case before next April. That its goal is not to take in more money than is
necessary to cover its expenses. That its members will see the balance
sheets and that it fully expects its members to tell it to lower its
rates, if it appears that income is exceeding expenses by too unhealthy an
amount. ARIN will be an entity that will become independent from NSI as
soon as its fees can cover the costs of its operation. It will be an
entity controlled by and run for the benefit of its members. I personally
hope that one of Kim's earliest progress reports will be the announcement
that ARIN is accepting members. I am convinced that she is totally
committed to the integrity of the IP number process, and that if any group
of "nasty big boys" every tried to pervert things so that they held a
knife to the throats of smaller ISPs, that she'd blow the whistle damned
quick and resign if need be to see that it didn't happen. As Avi Freedman
said today on inet-access: "Rule number 1. NEVER EVER LIE TO KIM."
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jul 17 00:41:07 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: a quick ps to long post
Message-ID:
Kim Hubbard is on a well deserved vacation this week....so please don't
expect a "status" report from her *THIS* week.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 05:11:50 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:11:50 +0100
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
References:
<3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net> <3.0.3.32.19970716221713.01380b94@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33CDE1D6.7558@ix.netcom.com>
Larry and all,
Larry Vaden wrote:
>
> At 09:00 PM 7/16/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >> One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued
> >> reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves
> >> correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut
> >> off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us
> >> `[:((.
> >>
> >> It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm
> >> with such a record.
> >
> > Couldn't agree more.
> >>
> >> Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a
> >> firm like EDS to do the back office functions.
> >
> > Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were
> >me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there
> >seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One
> >is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The
> >other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking.
>
> Actually, the suggestion is a rhetorical one, used to separate the current
> results from the expected results. I'd rather use firms like Stan Barber's
> academ.com for the back office function. But I speak personally, not for
> NAIR.
Understood and agreed.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From editor at txlaw.com Thu Jul 17 14:10:07 1997
From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:10:07 -0500
Subject: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com>
Gordon,
Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have
the opposite effect on your readers than you intended.
Let me highlight some examples:
Gordon Cook wrote:
> (1.) The three
> CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil
> Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI.
Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board
for now.
> I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
> that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
> obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
> advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air
out
> of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating
monopoly.
This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now?
What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the
members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise
the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members
electing the board?
> But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
> Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
> situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
> as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
> there might be subsequent revisions.
For many readers, this statement probably
confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic
decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how
the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
resources.
You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after
they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake
to
report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why
you related this if he did not agree to do it.
This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
the by-laws and the
proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about
that?"
Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this.
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma, Inc.
The ISP which DIDN'T
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 15:04:06 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:04:06 -0500
Subject: ISPAC-1 - A Scalable Proposal?
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717140406.01267914@texoma.net>
First, a distinction: This proposal uses the terms "ISP" and "NSP", the
rough distinction being that NSPs have national backbones and ISPs do not.
ISPAC-1 would be an ISP Address Coalition. George Herbert
has done some work in this area, as have Tony Li and
Yakov Rekhter. For George's contribution, see the NANOG and COM-PRIV
archives; for the work of Tony and Yakov, see:
http://www.globecom.net/(nobg,sv)/ietf/draft/draft-li-ispac00.shtml and
ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt.
It would differ somewhat from the ISPAC model in the two above URLs; the
primary difference is influenced by the "bottom up" approach, which is to
say it is more oriented towards ISPs (which need /20s thru /16s, e.g.) and
firms like digitalink.com, which publishes the Washington Post online
(which might need a /24 or /25) which need multihomed CIDR blocks.
The objectives are to provide ISPAC-1 members with provider independent
multihomed CIDR blocks, as opposed to provider dependent (AKA PA) space.
Further, the objective attempts to pay particular attention to requirements
of good stewardship of net resources.
ISPAC-1 would apply for a suitably sized CIDR block from NSI/InterNIC or
directly from the IANA.
ISPAC-1 would issue a RFP for a "group buy" and then, using the normal
commercial negotiations process, select 3-5 NSPs to carry their traffic.
Because ISPAC-1 members would be allocated PI space out of the same address
block, aggregation would be possible and likely.
Selected NSPs would advertise a single prefix (if initial sizing were
correct) for ISPAC-1 members.
Due mainly to the concern of Tony Li with whether this is scalable and any
NSP would want the business because the NSP's routers would have to contain
explicit routes to each ISPAC member, a very tentative and preliminary
proposal for prefixes would be:
xxxxxxxx.yyy.zzzzzzzz, with the length (in bits) of xxxxxxxx, yyy and
zzzzzzzz to be determined. xxxxxxxx would be the most significant part of
the prefix. yyy would be geographical (following George's thoughts) in
nature, but might be of length 0 if Tony's concerns are not of concern to
the selected NSPs. If non-zero in length, yyy would serve to decrease the
number of specific routes in any "regional" router in the contracting NSP,
IMHO. zzzzzzzz would be ISPAC member specific.
If yyy is of any use in reducing Tony's concerns, the credit goes to George
Herbert, gherbert at crl.com, for his discussions in NANOG and elsewhere
regarding address allocation policy in the greater San Franciso area.
Sincerely,
Larry Vaden
original distribution to: Kearney Connolly ,
Shane_Hampton at corp.acsi.net, Chad Hutchings , "Robert L.
Shearing" , with cc:'s to George Herbert
, Tony Li , Yakov Rekhter
, nair-founders at texoma.net, Stan Barber
From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jul 17 17:13:35 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com>
Message-ID:
I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
modus operandi.
Cook: But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why
not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
there might be subsequent revisions.
Eric W: For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation
that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions
Cook: your suggestion counsellor....not mine, and not what readers would
conclude if the read the WHOLE post with a mind set that has not found
telage, NSI, kim hubbard and ARIN guilty in advance
Eric W: rather than seeking rough consensus on how
the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
resources.
Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough
consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group.
Eric W: You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon
after they are made and post them on the website.
Cook: beware when lawyers shift from quotes to their own words. Danger
signal.... Their agenda at work - generally one of obfuscation!
The closest thing I can find in my text is "If Don Telage couldn't get the
word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. " I go on to
show how we arrived at the conclusion that Kim should be the one to get
the word out.
But you don't seem to see it. Let me draw you a bloody picture. ARIN is
not Telage's organization. His future is not tied up in it. Kim's future
*IS*. Now unfortunately because ARIN has just been born - is a wobbly calf
trying to stand on its own feet, while the coyotes circle smacking their
lips and smelling blood - there is a small problem for the calf. It needs
mother's milk (money) to nourish it and mothers hooves to kick any coyote
who tries to clamp down on the newborn's throat.
In other words ARIN needs members that will pay money before it can stand
on its own, and break the apron strings from the mother. This will happen
in 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile NSI, responding to the wishes of a number of
community workshops and fora has agreed to pay ARIN's bills during it's
start up. During the period while NSI has accepted financial
responsibility to pay ARIN's bills, they will be involved. No other
arrangement is fair or rational.
Eric W: It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to
your suggestion.
Cook: Where in the bloody hell do I "report that telage did not reply to
my suggestion!!?" I report no such thing and I resent your implying that I
did. He said that he did not have time to get out progress reports or
engage in these debates. To my suggestion that he give Kim Hubbard carte
blanche to get the word out, he agreed. I stated that extremely clearly!
Eric W: I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it.
^^^^ ^^
Cook: Related **what**, counsellor? If he did not agree to do **what**,
mr. Weisberg?
Eric W: This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did
Telage say about that?"
Cook: Here, counsellor, in my humble opinion you stoop to Jim Fleming
tactics of surmise and innuendo. You, in my opinion, take the same tack as
McClure does in his determination to destroy ARIN.
It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
differently. That is your prerogative.
Oh, let me answer your do-you-still-beat-your-wife insinuation Eric. I DID
NOT ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed
revisions before they become final. I did not need to ask him this because
to the best of MY knowledge he has not been the major force in drafting
the by laws. The major force has been Kim and the proposed members of the
ARIN board. As soon as they become the legal members of the board it is my
belief that you will have PLENTY of feedback from them with regard to the
bylaws. From what *I* can see you won't give them a bloody chance.... For
here we are for the last lord knows how many days with either you or larry
vaden picking ARIN apart, at all hours of the day and night seven days a
week. There are a lot of businesses out there not too dissimilar to your
own whose future stability will depend on an ARIN that works. The proposed
members of the ARIN board *ARE* highly respected members of the Internet
community who have played a significant role in creating the global
enterprise on which you now seek to provide a service. If you rip them to
shreds before they can put anything in place you will be judged
accordingly.
I am finished with taking my time to reply to your unwarranted comments. I
wish no further communication. I hope this is clear. Mail from you is
hereby routed to dev/null.
=========
here is my relevant text - some of which eric chose to quote, some of
which he chose not to quote.
I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net
and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN
Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out
of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly.
But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
there might be subsequent revisions.
But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I
responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net
believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent
unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that
NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two
because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their
credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of
McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the
word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it.
For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and
becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a
weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what
had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within
NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be
as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered.
Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to
write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before
she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be
bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked
like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible
because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable,
I can agree to that, said Don.
I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to
them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening
on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the
time to hear my message.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have
> the opposite effect on your readers than you intended.
> Let me highlight some examples:
>
> Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > (1.) The three
> > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil
> > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI.
>
> Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board
> for now.
>
> > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
> > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
> > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
> > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air
> out
> > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating
> monopoly.
>
> This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now?
> What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the
> members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise
> the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members
> electing the board?
>
> > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
> > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
> > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
> > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
> > there might be subsequent revisions.
>
> For many readers, this statement probably
> confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic
> decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how
> the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
> resources.
>
> You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after
> they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake
> to
> report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why
> you related this if he did not agree to do it.
>
> This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
> rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
> the by-laws and the
> proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about
> that?"
>
> Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this.
>
>
> Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> Internet Texoma, Inc.
> The ISP which DIDN'T
>
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 17:31:21 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:31:21 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net>
Gordon,
You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million
dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the
large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN
has no money and needs "members". Which is it ?
You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet.
If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your
ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and
presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ?
Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months.
Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI
IPO impact this delay ?
Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any,
in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you
have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure.
I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN.
Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ?
Jim Fleming
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 12:13 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@ I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
@ post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
@ modus operandi.
@
@ Cook: But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why
@ not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ there might be subsequent revisions.
@
@ Eric W: For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation
@ that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions
@
@ Cook: your suggestion counsellor....not mine, and not what readers would
@ conclude if the read the WHOLE post with a mind set that has not found
@ telage, NSI, kim hubbard and ARIN guilty in advance
@
@ Eric W: rather than seeking rough consensus on how
@ the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
@ resources.
@
@ Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough
@ consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group.
@
@ Eric W: You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon
@ after they are made and post them on the website.
@
@ Cook: beware when lawyers shift from quotes to their own words. Danger
@ signal.... Their agenda at work - generally one of obfuscation!
@ The closest thing I can find in my text is "If Don Telage couldn't get the
@ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. " I go on to
@ show how we arrived at the conclusion that Kim should be the one to get
@ the word out.
@
@ But you don't seem to see it. Let me draw you a bloody picture. ARIN is
@ not Telage's organization. His future is not tied up in it. Kim's future
@ *IS*. Now unfortunately because ARIN has just been born - is a wobbly calf
@ trying to stand on its own feet, while the coyotes circle smacking their
@ lips and smelling blood - there is a small problem for the calf. It needs
@ mother's milk (money) to nourish it and mothers hooves to kick any coyote
@ who tries to clamp down on the newborn's throat.
@
@ In other words ARIN needs members that will pay money before it can stand
@ on its own, and break the apron strings from the mother. This will happen
@ in 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile NSI, responding to the wishes of a number of
@ community workshops and fora has agreed to pay ARIN's bills during it's
@ start up. During the period while NSI has accepted financial
@ responsibility to pay ARIN's bills, they will be involved. No other
@ arrangement is fair or rational.
@
@ Eric W: It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to
@ your suggestion.
@
@ Cook: Where in the bloody hell do I "report that telage did not reply to
@ my suggestion!!?" I report no such thing and I resent your implying that I
@ did. He said that he did not have time to get out progress reports or
@ engage in these debates. To my suggestion that he give Kim Hubbard carte
@ blanche to get the word out, he agreed. I stated that extremely clearly!
@
@ Eric W: I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it.
@ ^^^^ ^^
@
@ Cook: Related **what**, counsellor? If he did not agree to do **what**,
@ mr. Weisberg?
@
@ Eric W: This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
@ rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
@ the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did
@ Telage say about that?"
@
@ Cook: Here, counsellor, in my humble opinion you stoop to Jim Fleming
@ tactics of surmise and innuendo. You, in my opinion, take the same tack as
@ McClure does in his determination to destroy ARIN.
@
@ It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
@ address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
@ internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
@ involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
@ the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
@ point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
@ differently. That is your prerogative.
@
@ Oh, let me answer your do-you-still-beat-your-wife insinuation Eric. I DID
@ NOT ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed
@ revisions before they become final. I did not need to ask him this because
@ to the best of MY knowledge he has not been the major force in drafting
@ the by laws. The major force has been Kim and the proposed members of the
@ ARIN board. As soon as they become the legal members of the board it is my
@ belief that you will have PLENTY of feedback from them with regard to the
@ bylaws. From what *I* can see you won't give them a bloody chance.... For
@ here we are for the last lord knows how many days with either you or larry
@ vaden picking ARIN apart, at all hours of the day and night seven days a
@ week. There are a lot of businesses out there not too dissimilar to your
@ own whose future stability will depend on an ARIN that works. The proposed
@ members of the ARIN board *ARE* highly respected members of the Internet
@ community who have played a significant role in creating the global
@ enterprise on which you now seek to provide a service. If you rip them to
@ shreds before they can put anything in place you will be judged
@ accordingly.
@
@ I am finished with taking my time to reply to your unwarranted comments. I
@ wish no further communication. I hope this is clear. Mail from you is
@ hereby routed to dev/null.
@
@ =========
@ here is my relevant text - some of which eric chose to quote, some of
@ which he chose not to quote.
@
@ I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net
@ and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN
@ Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
@ that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
@ obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
@ advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out
@ of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly.
@ But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
@ Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ there might be subsequent revisions.
@
@ But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I
@ responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net
@ believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent
@ unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that
@ NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two
@ because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their
@ credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of
@ McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the
@ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it.
@
@ For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and
@ becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a
@ weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what
@ had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within
@ NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be
@ as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered.
@ Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to
@ write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before
@ she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be
@ bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked
@ like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible
@ because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable,
@ I can agree to that, said Don.
@
@ I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to
@ them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening
@ on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the
@ time to hear my message.
@
@ ************************************************************************
@ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
@ 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
@ (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
@ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
@ attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
@ ************************************************************************
@
@
@ On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:
@
@ > Gordon,
@ >
@ > Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have
@ > the opposite effect on your readers than you intended.
@ > Let me highlight some examples:
@ >
@ > Gordon Cook wrote:
@ >
@ > > (1.) The three
@ > > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil
@ > > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI.
@ >
@ > Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board
@ > for now.
@ >
@ > > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
@ > > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
@ > > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
@ > > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air
@ > out
@ > > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating
@ > monopoly.
@ >
@ > This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now?
@ > What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the
@ > members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise
@ > the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members
@ > electing the board?
@ >
@ > > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
@ > > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ > > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ > > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ > > there might be subsequent revisions.
@ >
@ > For many readers, this statement probably
@ > confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic
@ > decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how
@ > the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
@ > resources.
@ >
@ > You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after
@ > they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake
@ > to
@ > report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why
@ > you related this if he did not agree to do it.
@ >
@ > This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
@ > rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
@ > the by-laws and the
@ > proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about
@ > that?"
@ >
@ > Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this.
@ >
@ >
@ > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
@ > Internet Texoma, Inc.
@ > The ISP which DIDN'T
@ >
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 17 18:11:57 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 17, 97 04:31:21 pm
Message-ID: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Jim Fleming supposedly said:
>
> Gordon,
>
> You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million
> dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the
> large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN
> has no money and needs "members". Which is it ?
As usual, you attempt to twist the simplest phrases into having some hidden
meaning. Applying the slightest amount of mental energy would produce the
following (obvious) conclusion:
NSI is providing intial funding for ARIN, but ARIN needs members if they
want to be self funding.
(In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been
stated countless times in the last 8 months.)
>
> You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet.
> If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your
> ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and
> presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ?
>
Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and
business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it
makes sense that he be involved in it.
> Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months.
> Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI
> IPO impact this delay ?
The claim was that ARIN will not be self supporting for 6 to 9 months.
Amazingly enough the reasons that ARIN has been delayed are largely due to
ravings posted to everybody under the sun that there was some conspiracy
afoot. After looking into those ravings, (and finding them baseless) ARIN
is finally being allowed to go forward.
>
> Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any,
> in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you
> have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure.
> I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN.
> Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ?
Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of
being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility.
The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There
are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN
because we believe in its goals and its necessity.
>
> Jim Fleming
>
---> Phil
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 18:14:16 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:14:16 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID: <01BC92D4.DBA24C60@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:11 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@
@ Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of
@ being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility.
@ The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There
@ are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN
@ because we believe in its goals and its necessity.
@
When will ARIN be operational ?
When will ISPs be assigned IP addresses ?
How has NSI and the IRS handled the valuation of
the IP addresses that ARIN is being "given" ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 18:49:08 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:49:08 -0500
Subject: Peasants ?
Message-ID: <01BC92D9.BAA0F340@webster.unety.net>
On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:32 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote:
@
@ On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
@
@
@ > Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are
@ > qualified enough to be on the initial board.
@
@ well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of
@ center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself
@ an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants
@ aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants
@ don't have the expertise!!
@
Gordon,
Can you describe who the "peasants" are ?
Also, can you expand on the qualifications of the
ARIN Board Members ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From rnelson at internoc.com Thu Jul 17 18:12:45 1997
From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:12:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:
> I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
> post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
> modus operandi.
>
[SNIP]
>
> It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
> address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
> internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
> involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
> the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
> point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
> differently. That is your prerogative.
In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the
nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other
people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet
Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our
consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what
their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic
process".
What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been
wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin
possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address
space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit
such an assignment (though I do not know for sure)
Several prolific writers on mail-lists and USENet have tossed their hats
into the ring with the Texoma folks, including Jim Fleming, and Jeff
Walker.
This group seems to feel that Jon Postel is the dictator of the Internet,
and everything that goes across his desk becomes part of a general
conspiracy by IANA/NSI/IAHC//ARIN to make the Internet their personal
fiefdom. This is also virtually the same group detracting from the
discussion over DNS issues.
I would like to suggest to the folks at Internet Texoma and NAIR that they
become fully aware of the bodies and policies that affect their business,
and attempt to use them to their advantage before they decide that "It's
bullshit, and a conspircay to take money out of my pocket".
Because most of the founding members of NAIR are given to responding to
messages on the Net BEFORE they have read and digested them, NAIR is
doomed to be regarded as irrelevant by the rest of the Internet. Because
they only seem to try to derail progress of Internet Development, instead
of working *with* the Internet Community, they will go down not as Leader
of the Internet Community (ala Vint Cerf/Vixie/Postel/) but as detractors
from the common good (ala AlterNIC)
I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen
to their ideas.
Robert Nelson, President
INTERNOC (tm)
the internetwork operating company, inc.
+1.210.299.4662
rnelson at internoc.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 13:50:29 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:50:29 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <33CE5B65.402E@ix.netcom.com>
Lhillip, Jim and all,
I must agree with Phillip here. Gordon made most of these questions
fairly clear in his previous post I thought.
Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
>
> Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> >
> > Gordon,
> >
> > You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million
> > dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the
> > large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN
> > has no money and needs "members". Which is it ?
>
> As usual, you attempt to twist the simplest phrases into having some hidden
> meaning. Applying the slightest amount of mental energy would produce the
> following (obvious) conclusion:
>
> NSI is providing intial funding for ARIN, but ARIN needs members if they
> want to be self funding.
>
> (In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been
> stated countless times in the last 8 months.)
>
> >
> > You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet.
> > If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your
> > ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and
> > presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ?
> >
>
> Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and
> business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it
> makes sense that he be involved in it.
>
> > Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months.
> > Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI
> > IPO impact this delay ?
>
> The claim was that ARIN will not be self supporting for 6 to 9 months.
> Amazingly enough the reasons that ARIN has been delayed are largely due to
> ravings posted to everybody under the sun that there was some conspiracy
> afoot. After looking into those ravings, (and finding them baseless) ARIN
> is finally being allowed to go forward.
>
> >
> > Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any,
> > in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you
> > have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure.
> > I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN.
> > Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ?
>
> Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of
> being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility.
> The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There
> are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN
> because we believe in its goals and its necessity.
>
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> >
>
> ---> Phil
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 17 20:33:31 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <01BC92D4.DBA24C60@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 17, 97 05:14:16 pm
Message-ID: <199707180033.AA021416013@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Jim Fleming supposedly said:
>
> On Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:11 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
>
> @
> @ Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of
> @ being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility.
> @ The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There
> @ are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN
> @ because we believe in its goals and its necessity.
> @
>
> When will ARIN be operational ?
After Gordon's phone call it seems that Kim will be able to make regular
status reports and we will know.
>
> When will ISPs be assigned IP addresses ?
>
My guess is once ARIN is operational they will start assigning IP
addresses. Sort of like when the McDonalds opened down the street I was
then able to get a burger from it.
> How has NSI and the IRS handled the valuation of
> the IP addresses that ARIN is being "given" ?
>
Why don't you ask NSI and the IRS. I don't presume to speak for them, but
I suspect they are handled the same way they have always been, and the same
way RIPE and APNIC handle them, and the way Sprint handles them, and the
way Joe's ISP handles them, and the way every other company handles them.
I suspect that each company handles them slightly differently, but most
don't because they aren't typically considered assets. If and when a new
standard accounting practice is published by XXX( the group that publishes
accounting practices who currently escapes me) then it will change.
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
>
>
---> Phil
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 20:40:21 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:40:21 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
References: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717194021.019bfbe4@texoma.net>
At 06:11 PM 7/17/97 -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
>(In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been
>stated countless times in the last 8 months.)
>
>>
>> You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet.
>> If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your
>> ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and
>> presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ?
>>
>
>Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and
>business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it
>makes sense that he be involved in it.
Why is not a procedure comparable to that outlined by ISOC (including
RFC2027) not being used for ARIN's BofT and Advisory Council, i.e., a "fast
start" to full representation of the membership?
, "Internet Society calls
for nominations to the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee", which says in
part:
>Procedure:
>
>1.This message is the call for nominations, which should be sent to
isoc-pocnom at isoc.org by the closing date of 17 September 1997.
>
>2.Each nomination must give the name, affiliation, email address and phone
number of the nominee, plus a brief statement (maximum 10 lines) about the
nominee's Internet and global credentials.
>
>3.Self-nominations are allowed.
>
>4.ISOC will verify each nominee's willingness to serve for one or three
years.
>
>5.The list of willing nominees will be published by ISOC shortly after the
closing date. Confidential comments from the community will be solicited.
The Board of Trustees of the Internet Society will then make its two
appointments and announce them within one month.
>
>6.Apart from the above, the Internet Society will be guided in its
deliberations by the procedures defined in RFC 2027.
>
>7.Nominees must accept that a recall procedure, analagous to that defined
in RFC 2027, may be invoked at any time during their terms.
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 14:41:16 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:41:16 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References:
Message-ID: <33CE674C.467A@ix.netcom.com>
MR Nelson and all,
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
> > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
> > modus operandi.
> >
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
> > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
> > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
> > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
> > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
> > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
> > differently. That is your prerogative.
>
> In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the
> nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other
> people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet
> Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our
> consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what
> their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic
> process".
>
> What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been
> wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin
> possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address
> space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit
> such an assignment (though I do not know for sure)
I don't believe that this is the perpose of NAIR, first of all. And I
do
find it highly questionable to anyone who has followed the dialog to
be able to make any such claim. But I will let other members of NAIR
answer your comment here. Members, you are being challanged! What
SAY YOU?
>
> Several prolific writers on mail-lists and USENet have tossed their hats
> into the ring with the Texoma folks, including Jim Fleming, and Jeff
> Walker.
>
> This group seems to feel that Jon Postel is the dictator of the Internet,
> and everything that goes across his desk becomes part of a general
> conspiracy by IANA/NSI/IAHC//ARIN to make the Internet their personal
> fiefdom. This is also virtually the same group detracting from the
> discussion over DNS issues.
Yes, many oar the same folks that felt and do feel that there is some
rather inconsistantcies in the current policies reguarding the gTLD-MoU.
This is not suprising in that there is some realationship.
>
> I would like to suggest to the folks at Internet Texoma and NAIR that they
> become fully aware of the bodies and policies that affect their business,
> and attempt to use them to their advantage before they decide that "It's
> bullshit, and a conspircay to take money out of my pocket".
Well the contract that is posted SURE is circumspect at the very
least.
>
> Because most of the founding members of NAIR are given to responding to
> messages on the Net BEFORE they have read and digested them, NAIR is
> doomed to be regarded as irrelevant by the rest of the Internet. Because
> they only seem to try to derail progress of Internet Development, instead
> of working *with* the Internet Community, they will go down not as Leader
> of the Internet Community (ala Vint Cerf/Vixie/Postel/) but as detractors
> from the common good (ala AlterNIC)
As I remember Vixie, was not a fan of the current DNS policies set
forth
in the gTLD-MoU. But I will no belabour that point. I and many others
in NAIR have read an gongested this information VERY thourly, and find
several points of concern which have been posted quite clearly and
consisely on this and other mailing lists.
>
> I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
> these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen
> to their ideas.
I agree. And I believe that some of the ideas put forth by Larry,
Jim, Eric,
and others have great value. As such it would seem likely that others
will also.
>
> Robert Nelson, President
> INTERNOC (tm)
> the internetwork operating company, inc.
> +1.210.299.4662
> rnelson at internoc.com
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 22:52:13 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:52:13 -0500
Subject: MIT Workshop on Internet Economics
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970717194021.019bfbe4@texoma.net>
References: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
<01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717215213.011d912c@texoma.net>
A Model for Efficient Aggregation of Resources for Economic Public Goods on
the Internet
Martyne M. Hallgren and Alan K. McAdams
Presented at MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995
for the complete paper, see
.
Clarification of Model/ Summary
We started this discussion by stating that in a complex economy, public
goods exist side by side with private goods, and that externalities are
pervasive. No "one-size-fits-all" approach to allocation of goods of such
complexity makes sense. Efficient allocation of a good must be driven by
the characteristics of the good. When the characteristics of two goods are
different, then to be efficient, the approaches to their allocation must be
different.
We have presented extensive discussion of two Internet "goods," GateDaemon
and service on uncongested networks, each of which is non-excludable and
non-depletable. By definition, they are "public goods;" and the marginal
cost of supplying these goods is zero. Appropriate allocation for public
goods, following the basic economic principle of price equal to marginal
cost, is a price to the consumer of "zero." In turn, this implies the need
for asymmetric pricing: a way must be found to provide resources to the
producer of the good sufficient to keep him or her producing the good.
Economic taxes (whether from public or private sources) are used to achieve
the latter.
If a public good experiences sufficient performance degradation, its
characteristics are transformed into those of an economic private goods
externality. It has become depletable, but remains non-excludable. There
are three possible approaches to resolving the private goods externality.
One option is do nothing; the good can continue to degrade until it is no
longer usable and is finally shut down. The second option is to reinvest in
the good, using the resources (taxes) acquired through asymmetric pricing
to fund the reinvestment. The third option is to impose some form of
institutional constraint and transform the good into an impeded public good
that is now excludable, but no longer depletable. Under the conditions of
option three, the user pays a price for access to the good that is equal to
the cost to society of removing the depletability (the congestion). That
price is arrived at through a market mechanism with a market-clearing price
that is symmetrical: what the user pays is what the institutional authority
receives. This feature explains why the private sector so readily adopts
this economic form (for movie theaters, CATV, commercially provided
software, and myriad other activities).
Asymmetric pricing for unimpeded public goods is most effective when the
agent that must deal with the asymmetry has the power to impose taxes (as
"Ma Bell" did in its monopoly days). If the agent does not have this power,
then in part, it must "beg" or it must create an incentive
program--consortium benefits--and invest considerable effort to generate
the funds, even to the point of creating a good with mixed characteristics
of both private and public goods.
The GateD Consortium is a successful implementation of asymmetric pricing
through a strategic alliance of organizations that value GateD. More
important than proving that (somewhat modified) asymmetric pricing can
work, GateD, as it has been implemented, has proven to be invaluable to the
growth of the Internet and the Internet economy through its spillover
benefits, especially those of enhanced interoperability of the Internet.
Since the decisions on the appropriate allocation mechanism for public
goods, or for private goods externalities are at the heart of the debate
over the commercialization of the Internet, it is extremely important to
note why there is a "best" option in each case: that of asymmetric pricing
for the public good; and for the latter, that of returning the
characteristics of the good to those of a public good. In each case we have
advanced the multiple reasons above. If the growth of the economy--and the
growth of the "Internet" business--is a desirable goal, then it is to
everyone's advantage to recognize that the appropriate allocation decisions
will avoid the negatives and achieve the positives we have identified.
Conclusions
The competitive market is not the only approach to resource allocation
currently being employed, even in the U.S. economy. It should not be
considered a panacea--especially in the presence of instances in which
there is an approach that is obviously superior for all. The Internet
economy has blossomed because a market pricing strategy was not imposed on
its development.
There are clear guidelines for appropriate resource allocation approaches
in the presence of public goods and in the presence of private goods
externalities. There are powerful reasons for following them.
The GateD Consortium and Project is a foundation and a model. It is a prime
example of where a little cooperation can result in great benefits for all.
It is consistent with a current incentive structure--the "University
Model"--that has proven its worth, literally over centuries, in relation to
economic public goods. It demonstrates that through the consortium
mechanism, the university and not-for-profit sectors of our society can
implement today rational, efficient, resource allocation approaches on
their own for the Internet.
We do not need to wait for, or rely on, government to do this for us. But
we do need to exercise some internal leadership. What institution(s) will
step up?
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 23:00:38 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:00:38 -0500
Subject: MIT Workshop on IE -- bottleneck facilities
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717220038.00bc37b8@texoma.net>
An Assessment of Pricing Mechanisms for the Internet--A Regulatory Imperative
Mitrabarun Sarkar
Presented at MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995
says, in part:
"We note that (a) the perceived homogeneity of the Internet's load, and (b)
the threat of market-power abuse through artificial creation of a high
network load by those who control the bottleneck facilities, remain the
fundamental weaknesses of usage-based pricing. However, given that usage-
based pricing is inevitable, and that the Smart Market mechanism does
present an innovative and a potential solution, it is important to consider
the appropriate safeguards that need to be put in place. In this context,
the paper argues that a usage based, free market pricing system needs to be
combined with some form of regulatory oversight to protect against
anti-competitive actions by the firms controlling
the bottleneck facilities and to ensure non- discriminatory access to
emerging networks."
From editor at txlaw.com Thu Jul 17 23:16:57 1997
From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:16:57 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References:
Message-ID: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
> I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
> these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen
> to their ideas.
>
> Robert Nelson, President
> INTERNOC (tm)
> the internetwork operating company, inc.
> +1.210.299.4662
> rnelson at internoc.com
Robert,
I respect your thoughts on this. I am certain that you are speaking
from your heart and experience. I fully accept that you understand an
immense amount that I can not appreciate. Thus, I have to be and am
concerned that I may be wrong in my criticism. Furthermore, I have
nothing to gain from this heated and personal discussion. I fully
understand that my company may suffer harm from my being so foolish.
And, I do not enjoy the enmity I am earning from people whom I would
like to have as friends.
However, I am continuing this side of the discussion because I think
these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order
to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If
we organize correctly in the beginning, we will live in a more just and
healthy environment. If we do not, we will pay the price with
discriminatory rules and arbitrary enforcement.
I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I
think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge
the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points,
people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net.
That, I do not accept.
I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
some broadly representative group. I question whether that has
occurred.
I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
should be organized.
You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and
decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was
a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people
an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such
a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to
respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or
integrity.
I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people
involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an
IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be
entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use
an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from
his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board
appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with
my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes
that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be
dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded
to me on these points.
Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory
board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know?
Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process
should go on behind closed doors?
My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work.
Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do
you propose we raise and deal with those issues?
Respectfully,
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma, Inc.
The ISP which DIDN'T
From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 23:08:25 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:08:25 -0500
Subject: Breaking the Bottleneck and Sharing the Wealth
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717220825.00bc37b8@texoma.net>
Robert K. Lock, Jr.
Executive Assistant
Illinois Commerce Commission
Prepared for: "Universal Service in Context: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective." New York Law School
December 6, 1995
From randy at PSG.COM Thu Jul 17 23:14:00 1997
From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 20:14 PDT
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References:
<33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID:
> these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order
> to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If
> we organize correctly in the beginning
This may come as a bit of a surprise. The beginning was some decades ago.
Hence, many folk see what you are seemingly trying to do is radically change
the status quo and momentum therefrom with little understanding of it or
sympathy for it. This may explain some of the opprobrium you receive.
randy
From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Jul 17 23:36:11 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:36:11 +0900
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:16:57 EST."
<33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Eric,
>I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
>should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
>some broadly representative group.
Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what
exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
>I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
>I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
>should be organized.
ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at
various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc.
>I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
>sensitive ear) of paternalism.
Previously, you have admitted that you do not have the technical
background to discuss specifics about how address allocations are
done, yet you now describe the ARIN proposal as paternalistic. I
might suggest that you might try to understand how and why the
registries operate as they do before applying negative attributes to
them.
>But, no one has responded to me on these points.
Perhaps because you have not spelled out what you mean?
Regards,
-drc
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 00:26:37 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:26:37 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To:
References:
<33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717232637.0076bf2c@texoma.net>
At 08:14 PM 7/17/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote:
>> these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order
>> to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If
>> we organize correctly in the beginning
>
>This may come as a bit of a surprise. The beginning was some decades ago.
There's no doubt Mr. Weisberg was referring to the beginning of ARIN, which
was hardly "some decades ago".
Please don't be silly here, either.
>From NANOG earlier today:
>Posted-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:23:04 -0500 (CDT)
>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 17:02 PDT
>From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
>To: Steve Goldstein
>Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: NSI bulletin 097-004 | Root Server Problems
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>
>> 2. Please don't grow up; you're more fun this way...
>
>Nah. I owe Perry an apology for getting silly in public. We both know that
>is a non-trivial problem.
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 00:35:55 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:35:55 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717233555.00709254@texoma.net>
At 12:36 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
>Eric,
>
>>I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
>>should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
>>some broadly representative group.
>
>Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what
>exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
Main Entry: dem?o?crat?ic
Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
Date: 1602
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political
parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the
anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in
modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the
people
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 18:59:21 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:59:21 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
References: <33CE674C.467A@ix.netcom.com> <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net>
Message-ID: <33CEA3C9.66B1@ix.netcom.com>
Peter and all,
Peter Veeck wrote:
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > MR Nelson and all,
> >
> > Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
> > > > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
> > > > modus operandi.
> > > >
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
> > > > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
> > > > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
> > > > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
> > > > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
> > > > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
> > > > differently. That is your prerogative.
> > >
> > > In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the
> > > nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other
> > > people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet
> > > Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our
> > > consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what
> > > their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic
> > > process".
> > >
> > > What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been
> > > wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin
> > > possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address
> > > space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit
> > > such an assignment (though I do not know for sure)
> >
> > I don't believe that this is the perpose of NAIR, first of all. And I
> > do
> > find it highly questionable to anyone who has followed the dialog to
> > be able to make any such claim. But I will let other members of NAIR
> > answer your comment here. Members, you are being challanged! What
> > SAY YOU?
> > >
>
> Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single --
> versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't
> feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in
> any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer:
> multiple smaller computers over one big computer.
> multiple administrators rather than a single administrator.
> multiple registries rather than a single registry.
> multiple suppliers rather than a single source.
>
> My background includes flying, where I found that your life expectancy
> was much greater in a multi-engine aircraft than in a single engine
> aircraft. In a multi-engine airplane it is healthier to have two pilots
> rather than one. I, in fact, disagree with the manufacturers, the
> airlines, and the FAA in that I prefer three pilots rather than two.
> That is another debate which I will not engage in here.
Ahhhhh! Well we do share some similar background, I am also a pilot
myself. Ex-Marine Fighter Pilot actually. And as a Marine/Navy flyer,
we perfered the twin engine approach verses the Airforces single
engine prefrence. This has proven over time to be a superior
approach.
>
> I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization
> providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce
> the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the
> failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points,
> backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk.
This is known as redundancy in design. I agree.
>
> If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or
> organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or
> organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON
> IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the
> Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from
> Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider
> and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that
> organization.
Well put. And exactly what NAIR I believe is about in esance.
>
> I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
> selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
> operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
> multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
> of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
> registry.
Yes exactly.
>
> They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
You can't. You can only hope. Few dictatorships in history have
ever een benevolent.
>
> Peter Veeck
> RegionalWeb.Texoma.net
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From davidc at APNIC.NET Fri Jul 18 01:25:43 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:25:43 +0900
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:35:55 EST."
<3.0.3.32.19970717233555.00709254@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <199707180525.OAA23475@moonsky.jp.apnic.net>
Larry,
Not sure how being obnoxious helps you argue your case, but I'm sure
it makes sense to you.
However, if you look at my question, you'll see that the definition of
democracy doesn't quite apply.
I will ask yet again:
_Within the context of IP address allocation_, what exactly do you
mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
Thanks,
-drc
--------
>At 12:36 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
>>Eric,
>>
>>>I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
>>>should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
>>>some broadly representative group. =20
>>
>>Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what
>>exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
>
>Main Entry: dem=B7o=B7crat=B7ic
>Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
>Function: adjective
>Date: 1602
>1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
>2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political
>parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the
>anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in
>modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
>3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the
>people
>4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish
>
>
>
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 19:17:17 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:17:17 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <33CEA7F0.193E@ix.netcom.com>
Eric and all,
I thought this post very well stated. I would add, that, as Thomas
Jefferson once siad, "The tree of lierty is watered by the blood of its
patriots". The battel here seems to be very much joined. Personal
attacks
and all. The battle is over what Eric said so well, REPRESENTIVE
system.
What seems to be the direction form ARIN, is not. This is starkly
evident ins some of the comments and creditbility attacks being made
against Eric, myself and others whom do not take on face value what
is being said from within ARIN and what is not being answered when
querried. This leads to suspicion. Once going down that path very
far, it is a long and never ending road. Let us all attempt
to find inclusion for all in this process instead of attacking
any person(S) integraty here.
Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
> Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> >
> > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
> > these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen
> > to their ideas.
> >
> > Robert Nelson, President
> > INTERNOC (tm)
> > the internetwork operating company, inc.
> > +1.210.299.4662
> > rnelson at internoc.com
>
> Robert,
>
> I respect your thoughts on this. I am certain that you are speaking
> from your heart and experience. I fully accept that you understand an
> immense amount that I can not appreciate. Thus, I have to be and am
> concerned that I may be wrong in my criticism. Furthermore, I have
> nothing to gain from this heated and personal discussion. I fully
> understand that my company may suffer harm from my being so foolish.
> And, I do not enjoy the enmity I am earning from people whom I would
> like to have as friends.
>
> However, I am continuing this side of the discussion because I think
> these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order
> to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If
> we organize correctly in the beginning, we will live in a more just and
> healthy environment. If we do not, we will pay the price with
> discriminatory rules and arbitrary enforcement.
>
> I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I
> think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge
> the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points,
> people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net.
> That, I do not accept.
>
> I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
> should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
> some broadly representative group. I question whether that has
> occurred.
>
> I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
> I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
> should be organized.
>
> You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and
> decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was
> a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people
> an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such
> a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to
> respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or
> integrity.
>
> I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
> sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people
> involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an
> IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be
> entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use
> an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from
> his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board
> appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with
> my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes
> that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be
> dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded
> to me on these points.
>
> Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory
> board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know?
> Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process
> should go on behind closed doors?
>
> My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work.
> Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do
> you propose we raise and deal with those issues?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> Internet Texoma, Inc.
> The ISP which DIDN'T
Thank you and Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From rnelson at internoc.com Fri Jul 18 00:38:59 1997
From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:38:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID:
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> >
> > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
^^^^^^
Williams
[sorry, Jeff]
> Robert,
> I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I
> think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge
> the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points,
> people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net.
> That, I do not accept.
I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is
best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for
you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however
I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be
better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and
working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from
entities who try to hijack the process.
>
> I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
> should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
> some broadly representative group. I question whether that has
> occurred.
You are currently not subject to a representative system at all. ARIN will
bring more representation to the process, not less.
I suggest to you, and to Peter, that you join ARIN as members, and make
your voice heard, and subject to the consensus there.
>
> I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
> I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
> should be organized.
Unfortunately, this is a computer. Unless you have a better programming
model, I think you need to stick with it for a while. ARIN seems to me to
be a step in the right direction. I think that in no more than 10 years
we will have to go at this again, to wean the Internet further off of its'
"parents".
>
> You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and
> decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was
> a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people
> an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such
> a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to
> respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or
> integrity.
I will certainly respond to this. I have not been actively involved in the
debate over ARIN. There are parts of the proposal that I am not wild
about. I am personally pleased that leaders in the Internet Community have
come up with an idea to get NSI out of the IP Space business, even if it
takes NSI to start it up. It is a step in the right direction.
A public vote should not necessarily occur on the issue of numeric space.
Assignment of numbers is somewhat inherently (to me, anyway)
non-democratic. If you can show me specifically how you intend
to assign numbers from multiple registries, without having a coordinating
body, I am very interested. This may sound like the "benevolent dictator"
system, and to a degree, it is. It will eventually have to be torn apart,
and a new system born.
I do not attack your integrity. I believe that you do what you feel is
right and just. And i will defend your right to speak your mind, while I
disagree with you in the same breath.
>
> I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
> sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people
> involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an
> IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be
> entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use
> an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from
> his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board
> appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with
> my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes
> that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be
> dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded
> to me on these points.
You can hardly form an entity without having a group of "founders".
As far as peasants go (yes, poor choice of words) do you let your users
control your network? If you did, wouldn't it be more of a knotwork? It
really isn't much different. Remove yourself from your personal stake in
the issue, and look at it objectively.
I would hesitate to give numeric assignments the stature of governance. I
think that that word has sufficient connotations that if we use it in this
sense, we will set ourselves up for Real Governance (tm) by an Internet
Government (tm). I do not support that Internet. I think that we don't
know how to govern, much less govern cyberspace.
>
> Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory
> board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know?
> Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process
> should go on behind closed doors?
By my reading of the proposal, it will be as representative as the
membership insist that it be. If the BoT selects Advisory Council members
from the membership, then you should be out there selling ARIN as much as
the next guy to make sure 1) you have wide representation via members and
Advisory Council seats and 2) the power to oust. The membership will
consist, by my guess, of the serious stakeholders in IP Space, and those
who feel qualified to add to the process. If this is not the
representation you want at ARIN, you should be pushing your kind of people
to participate. The process, for the initial term, seems fairly
straighforward, and certainly not behind closed doors. I think you should
make it you goal to make *damn sure* that come next year, as ARIN reviews
these processes, that you make your voice heard via your membership and
the Advisory Council.
>
> My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work.
> Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do
> you propose we raise and deal with those issues?
It is my goal to make these Public trusts, remain in the public trust, in
a way that the public can trust. Unfortunately, spin gets out of control
very quickly on the net, and it is very difficult for the organizers to
respond to everyone's complaints personally. They are then accused of
being secretive. Mostly they're trying to get something done. For you. And
me. And them (don't forget them) ;->
Hopefully I have made myself more clear.
Yours,
Rob Nelson
From rnelson at internoc.com Fri Jul 18 00:42:21 1997
From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:42:21 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
In-Reply-To: <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Peter Veeck wrote:
[snipped beginning of discussion to save space]
>
> Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single --
> versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't
> feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in
> any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer:
> multiple smaller computers over one big computer.
> multiple administrators rather than a single administrator.
> multiple registries rather than a single registry.
> multiple suppliers rather than a single source.
As a general rule I agree with you. Redundancy is important in operational
systems.
> I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization
> providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce
> the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the
> failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points,
> backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk.
>
> If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or
> organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or
> organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON
> IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the
> Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from
> Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider
> and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that
> organization.
>
> I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
> selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
> operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
> multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
> of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
> registry.
>
Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.
I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
(downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
with their space as they please.
Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
role of downstream registry.
In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
completely open field operating the root zone.
In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.
I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
the process.
If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
> They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
up. We better get planning.
Yours,
Rob Nelson
rnelson at internoc.com
From dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM Fri Jul 18 00:39:43 1997
From: dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM (Dave Crocker)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:39:43 -0700
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To:
References: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970717213943.00be0454@ng.netgate.net>
At 05:13 PM 7/17/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough
>consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group.
No, it is not the IETF, but the IETF style of decision making has proved
to be remarkably successful. For Internet-related processes (and no doubt
other community-oriented activities not involving the Internet) it is
entirely appropriate to incorporate as much of that style as is feasible.
The IETF rought consensus model has two major benefits (when it works)
which is that it acquires massive review and, therefore, improvement, and
it tends to build very strong community support.
There is of course no guarantee that an effort to emulate that style will
be successful, but NSI's approach to dealing with the Internet community is
rather extreme in the other direction and it would be very difficult to
call it a successful approach, either in terms of quality of the decisions
or in terms of community support. No?
d/
--------------------
Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info at imc.org , http://www.imc.org
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:23:52 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:23:52 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To:
References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718012352.00a10450@texoma.net>
At 11:38 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
>I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is
>best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for
>you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however
>I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be
>better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and
>working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from
>entities who try to hijack the process.
Agreed, save ARIN (as currently proposed) "tapers" into representation of
the membership over a period of significant time. That's the key issue
here. Why not a more immediate "taper" using less time. Why not sunset
the original "organizers" quickly and let them stand for a vote of the
membership? What is the transition period for, if we accept that the
process will eventually be run by the members?
>I will certainly respond to this. I have not been actively involved in the
>debate over ARIN. There are parts of the proposal that I am not wild
>about. I am personally pleased that leaders in the Internet Community have
>come up with an idea to get NSI out of the IP Space business, even if it
>takes NSI to start it up. It is a step in the right direction.
After more than 200 years of democracy in the US, I would think most people
in the US are comfortable enough with the democratic process to take more
than "a step in the right direction". You hear the ARIN "taper into
democracy" thing on TV every once in a while - some country's dictator
proposing democratic elections some time in the future.
>A public vote should not necessarily occur on the issue of numeric space.
>Assignment of numbers is somewhat inherently (to me, anyway)
>non-democratic. If you can show me specifically how you intend
>to assign numbers from multiple registries, without having a coordinating
>body, I am very interested. This may sound like the "benevolent dictator"
>system, and to a degree, it is. It will eventually have to be torn apart,
>and a new system born.
There are multiple registries now - APNIC, NSI/InterNIC, RIPE. The
coordinating body is the IANA.
APNIC and RIPE have a policy of allocating /19s to small ISPs. InterNIC
does not.
Why? Is IANA|Internic of the opinion APNIC or RIPE are wrong in their
policy to allocate /19s to small ISPs?
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:27:38 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:27:38 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
In-Reply-To:
References: <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718012738.00a10450@texoma.net>
At 11:42 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
>It
>confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
>the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
>(downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
>with their space as they please.
There are 3 registries operating now, APNIC, NSI/InterNIC and RIPE.
They all allocate space from the same 32 bit range of IP numbers.
The coordination is done by IANA.
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:46:54 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:46:54 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News
from Don Telage about ARIN
In-Reply-To: <199707180525.OAA23475@moonsky.jp.apnic.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718014654.00709254@texoma.net>
At 02:25 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
>Larry,
>
>Not sure how being obnoxious helps you argue your case, but I'm sure
>it makes sense to you.
>
>However, if you look at my question, you'll see that the definition of
>democracy doesn't quite apply.
>
>I will ask yet again:
>
>_Within the context of IP address allocation_, what exactly do you
>mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
>
>Thanks,
>-drc
David, thanks for the opportunity to try again.
Of the two processes outlined at
and
, which appears to be more
"democratic" to you?
My answer is the one that reads as follows:
Procedure:
1.This message is the call for nominations, which should be sent to
isoc-pocnom at isoc.org by the closing date of 17 September 1997.
2.Each nomination must give the name, affiliation, email address and phone
number of the nominee, plus a brief statement (maximum 10 lines) about the
nominee's Internet and global credentials.
3.Self-nominations are allowed.
4.ISOC will verify each nominee's willingness to serve for one or three
years.
5.The list of willing nominees will be published by ISOC shortly after the
closing date. Confidential comments from the community will be solicited.
The Board of Trustees of the Internet Society will then make its two
appointments and announce them within one month.
6.Apart from the above, the Internet Society will be guided in its
deliberations by the procedures defined in RFC 2027.
7.Nominees must accept that a recall procedure, analagous to that defined
in RFC 2027, may be invoked at any time during their terms.
From editor at txlaw.com Fri Jul 18 03:47:57 1997
From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 02:47:57 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <33CF1FAD.264@txlaw.com>
David,
I really thought I answered your question on "democracy" in a previous
exchange and need some help zeroing in on what more is sought. I will
try to respond to all your questions and points below. If I get off
point, let me know.
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what
> exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific.
I did not say that any single model is the only right way to organize an
ARIN. I simply suggested that the mechanism should be representative (as
where there are representatives from trade organizations for the various
segments of the Internet community, including consumers) or democratic
(elected, as in other forms of corporate governance), and that we arrive
at a broad concensus through open discussion in a forum such as this.
We are all in organizations which conduct elections. I assume that an
IP registry could do so, as well. Indeed, that is what Gordon reports
will be required for the ARIN advisory board sometime after the first
year of ARIN's existence. So, the feasibility of an election is not in
dispute, simply when that process will begin.
It is 2:40 a.m. here, and I have not had supper. So, I will defer
further discusssion until you or someone else asks me to deal with it
somemore. I do not want to duck the issue and won't if it is of
interest to more than just me.
> >I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
> >I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
> >should be organized.
>
> ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at
> various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc.
You will have to help me with this. Was the abstract concept of ARIN
discussed or was the specific structure which was adopted discussed? In
other words, was the method of choosing the BoT and the Advisory Council
discussed before a decision was made?
>
> >I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
> >sensitive ear) of paternalism.
>
> Previously, you have admitted that you do not have the technical
> background to discuss specifics about how address allocations are
> done, yet you now describe the ARIN proposal as paternalistic. I
> might suggest that you might try to understand how and why the
> registries operate as they do before applying negative attributes to
> them.
David, I want to back off on this. I admitted that my ears are overly
sensitive. Perhaps I was hearing something which was not intended. You
certainly are in a better position to judge this than I. And, I hear
you saying that it is not true. I appologize to all involved.
> >But, no one has responded to me on these points.
>
> Perhaps because you have not spelled out what you mean?
I never intended to get this deeply involved, no less to suggest that I
have the wisdom to dictate the structure. I merely wanted to make sure
that there was a proccess designed to result in a representative system
rather than one of stangnant control.
As Robert Nelson pointed out, I backed into this discussion through the
PI issue, so I have been seeing red flags for a while. I percieved, and
still percieve a system which is demonstrably and unneccesarily unfair.
I think I have seen disparate treatment for different players. I am
told by everyone involved that NSI will not fix the system but will
leave it to ARIN and that ARIN will not be able to even address that
issue for months. As a result, I have put considerable thought into
various legal remedies and see ARIN as part of the problem rather than
as a solution. So, I admit that I come to my conclusions with a
history. Unfortunately, there has been very little attempt to assuage
my fears, merely references to my "clueless" state, which has had the
opposite effect.
However, we may all be in agreement on these issues and simply not know
it. Thus, I would appreciate the ARIN board members discussing THEIR
vision of where we are going as far as govenrance is concerned. Indeed,
I think this is what Gordon was suggesting. Perhaps we can start
discussing how to make things work instead of accusing the each other of
unintended agendas or insults.
BTW, the other thing which has me concerned with ARIN is the method of
appointing the INITIAL Advisory Council. I hope, suggest and request
that the BoT will find a mechanism for assuring balance and diversity in
the AC. Again, this could be done by asking the various trade groups
for representatives or by discussing candidates openly in this forum and
arriving on some rough concensus. I would suggest some form of
electronic voting with a proportionate representation methodology (such
as giving each person 15 votes to use however they see fit, either
spread among 15 candidates or all used on one or two, with the top 15
vote getters being selected).
> Regards,
> -drc
David, thanks for the constructive questions and criticism. I honestly
appreciate your patience and your willingness to participate as you do.
Eric
From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 06:51:39 1997
From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:51:39 +0200
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:23:52 CDT."
<3.0.3.32.19970718012352.00a10450@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <9707181051.AA28716@ncc.ripe.net>
Hi Larry,
Larry Vaden writes:
* At 11:38 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote:
*
* After more than 200 years of democracy in the US, I would think most people
* in the US are comfortable enough with the democratic process to take more
* than "a step in the right direction". You hear the ARIN "taper into
* democracy" thing on TV every once in a while - some country's dictator
* proposing democratic elections some time in the future.
I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
American countries other ARIN regions?
To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
"members" will get a say in what happens.
First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
hand.
* There are multiple registries now - APNIC, NSI/InterNIC, RIPE. The
* coordinating body is the IANA.
*
* APNIC and RIPE have a policy of allocating /19s to small ISPs. InterNIC
* does not.
*
* Why? Is IANA|Internic of the opinion APNIC or RIPE are wrong in their
* policy to allocate /19s to small ISPs?
*
IANA|InterNIC?
I assume you just mean the InterNIC.
IANA has the same role for APNIC and RIPE-NCC as it does for InterNIC.
I think you have to look at some of the controlling mechanisms in the
way that the different registries decide who they can give service to.
In all three Regional Registries not being able to get service from
the Regional Registry normally means going to your upstream IPv4 source.
RIPE NCC may only give IP numbers to ,or via, it's member registries.
To become such a registry there are fees and responsibilities involved.
It does not matter if you are an ISP or a greengrocer, we just have
registries. Of course we don't have many greengrocers wishing to
be Local Internet Registries:-)
The initial /19 a registry would get is what we call an allocation and
can be routed to the Global Internet. The Registry can not give out
the addresses for use by their customers without approval for each
individual network.
At a certain point the Registry, having shown itself to be responsible
and to understand the criteria for assigning IPv4 addresses, is weaned
off of the support from the NCC. This can be a long process and takes
commitment of time and resources by member registries.
More details on policies can be found on our web-site.
APNIC has similar counterbalances to deter non-serious applicants.
If we didn't have these everybody we come to the Regionals and
we would suffer melt down of our resources within a very short time
period.
InterNIC has no such counterbalances. Therefor, by neccesity, they
operate by a slightly different set of criteria.
ARIN is a proposal that can solve some of the problems that people
have with the InterNIC. The proposed structure is in many ways similar
to that of the RIPE-NCC and APNIC.
Control from the bottom up but still allowing the people to do the
work they need to get done.
ARIN is an opportunity for the Internic/NSI solution to be replaced
with a system that will also allow for the bottom-up approach.
A control from bottom-up is something that everyone seems to agree is
needed. There is an opportunity here to achieve this. If people are
willing to let ARIN be setup and to "trust", a word that people have
difficulty with;-), those who have the task of getting things going to
do just that, then it can work.
Kind regards,
John Crain
RIPE NCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 08:48:24 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:48:24 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: <9707181051.AA28716@ncc.ripe.net>
References:
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718074824.00bf95a8@texoma.net>
At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
...
>I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
>However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
>have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
>
>Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
>with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
>in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
>American countries other ARIN regions?
>
>To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
>suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
>"members" will get a say in what happens.
>
>First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
>hand.
Hi, John. It is good to hear from you again. I hope you will agree to
continue helping with the discussion.
As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will an
Advisory Council be 100% elected by the members rather than by the BofT?
As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will the
BofT be 100% elected by the members rather than by the organizers of ARIN?
I appreciate and value your input.
Best regards,
Larry
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 08:46:44 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:46:44 -0500
Subject: ARIN History
Message-ID: <01BC934E.BE31D400@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:16 PM, Eric Weisberg[SMTP:editor at txlaw.com] wrote:
@
@ You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and
@ decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was
@ a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people
@ an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such
@ a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to
@ respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or
@ integrity.
@
Eric,
The following[1] from January 4, 1997 may help you
fill in some of the blanks. Note, ARIN was a "done deal"
when it was disclosed in January. Note, the meeting
references below with APNIC and RIPE and Jon Postel.
Also note that many of the questions still have not
been answered.....since January....NSI has obviously
been working on their IPO and moving people in buildings
to make the "done deal" reality. There is very little feedback
to the "Internet community" on what is really going on.
About all the NSF does is send out letters and issue press
releases stating that all of these decisions are based on
"consensus" from the Internet community. It is my impression
that the NSF only listens to 6 or 8 people or companies, if that.
Now the FTC and the DOJ are involved in these matters.
People want to quickly separate the domain name debates
and the IP address debates to confuse the federal investigators.
Internet resources are Internet resources and no one is fooling
anyone, they are all controlled by one person. For some reason
the Internet community does not want to admit this fact.
In my opinion, it would be better to admit it and move on. The NSF
dances around the issue, the FNC dances around the issue and
the FNCAC dances around the issue. Nobody wants to focus
on the problem, instead people are given a big run around, especially
when they are new, so that they can not easily see the problem.
This is certainly not going to change unless people like Clinton
and Gore wake up and say, "enough is enough...people have wasted
enough valuable time and energy". Unfortunately, the Internet Community
has not alternative form of governance and the existing federal
and state governances in various countries have not yet mapped
the Internet to their existing structures. Fortunately, lawyers
and politicians are beginning to see that there are many parallels.
They have been dealing with the allocation of scarce resources
for years. The issues are exactly the same, the "haves" and the
"have nots".
I do not think I need to tell you which you are...
Jim Fleming
[1] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at UNETY.NET]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 1997 11:36 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list NAIPR
Subject: Re: ARIN Questions (reposted)
On Saturday, January 04, 1997 5:01 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote:
@ >
@ No, I didn't miss it. I've been busy - ordering up new space from
@ the IP factory :-) Seriously, I'll try to answer the questions
@ I can.
@
You may want to get incorporated before you place the
order...it makes the book keeping easier...;-)
Also, there are some very tricky IRS tax laws on how
to account for inventory, so you may want to make sure
your accountants set that up properly.
As an aside, I assume you mean IPv4 when you say IP.
IPv8 addresses are 43 bits long (32+8+3) and do not
come from the same factory as IPv4 addresses.
One of the nice things is that IPv4 addresses can be
"souped up" to IPv8 addresses with a simple "kit"
that gets bolted on....:-)
@
@ > Kim,
@ >
@ > I think something may have happened to the new ARIN
@ > mailing list and you may have missed these...here they
@ > are again...with a few more...
@ >
@ > Congratulations on the ARIN news...here are some questions...
@ >
@ > 1. What "factory" will be manufacturing your IPv4 addresses ?
@
@ None.
@
Hmmm...I thought they were manufactered out in "tinsel town"...
@
@ > 2. What inventory of addresses do you have ?
@
@ Do you mean unassigned addresses? If so, we are currently allocating
@ from 208/8 and 209/8. All other unassigned address space is managed
@ by the IANA.
@
Ahhh...so the IANA IPv4 plant has allowed you to operate your
own franchised factories for 208 and 209.
How much did you have to pay for those manufacturing rights ?
Is the IANA selling any other /24 franchises ?
@ >
@ > 3. How did you obtain that inventory ?
@ > What did it cost ?
@
@ >From the IANA in conjunction with the cooperative agreement between
@ NSF and NSI. ARIN will continue to receive it from the IANA.
Let me get this straight.
You are starting a NEW, independent non-profit 501(c) company.
That's cool, many people start companies at the beginning of the year.
Now...
You are obtaining the inventory to start your company via the U.S. Government ?
Is this government surplus ?
Has the NSF approved this ?
Did the U.S. Government advertise this or post any notices regarding this ?
@ >
@ > 4. Will you also be paying people to "recycle" unused addresses ?
@ > If so, how much ?
@
@ No.
So, what happens when you run out of inventory...?
@ >
@ > 5. Has the IRS made any rulings on the market value of
@ > IP addresses ?
@
@ Not to my knowledge.
That should be easy now that fees appear to be established.
By the way, are those fees matched to the APNIC or is that a coincidence ?
@ >
@ > 6. Have you considered running ARIN as a "for profit" company ?
@
@ o.
I assume that is a No...
@ >
@ > 7. Have you considered developing distribution "channels" ?
@ > (i.e. are there key ISPs who will be distributors?)
@
@ ISPs are already "distributors" in a sense.
Yes, and what a loyal group. They do all the work and never ask for
commissions. Not a bad deal.
@ >
@ >
@ 8. How will ARIN impact the current "grey market" for CIDR blocks ?
@
@ Grey market???
Trading behind the scenes...some people claim they now pay
a $50,000 one time fee for a /16...
@
@ > 9. As other companies (for profit or non-profit) launch similar
@ > ventures such as ARIN, will Network Solutions, Inc.
@ > be providing the financial backing ? Is that money coming
@ > from the 30% NSF domain trust fund ?
@
@ You'll have to ask NSI. The 30% fund is not being used for ARIN.
Actually, the NSF is the agency to ask...that is in progress...;-)
@ >
@ > 10. I noticed that the IANA has already announced ARIN. Has ARIN
@ > already been incorporated and been approved as a 501(c) ?
@ >
@ >
@ No.
Hmmm...I am not sure how you can have inventory and contractural
agreements and all that sort of thing before you are a real company.
Must be a new way to handle a 501(c).
By the way, have you ever run a 501(c) ?
Not to discourage you, but they can be very tricky.
It is much easier to run a "for-profit" company.
Again, check with your lawyers and accountants, your mileage may vary...
@
@ > 11. Do you have the meeting notes on-line from the meetings and
@ > plans noted below [1] [2] ?
@
@ No.
Will they be...?
@ >
@ > 12. Will ARIN be paying the NEW Root Name Server owner/operators
@ > to maintain delegations for the IN-ADDR.ARPA pseudo TLD ?
@
@ No.
Hmmm...how can you then guarantee that your allocations are useful ?
Keep in mind that based on what has been proposed to date, ARIN will
not be a long arm of the U.S. Government. You now enter the world where
ARIN will be an equal among many non-profit and for-profit companies.
There can be no special U.S. Government privileges if other companies
are not given the same.
You might want to investigate ALL of the ins and outs of the registry
industry that goes far beyond the protected walls of the InterNIC.
@
@ >
@ > 13. Does ARIN plan to deploy any Root Name Servers or other network
@ > infrastructure ?
@
@ Not sure yet.
Keep us posted. Without TRUE Root Name Servers, companies in the
registry business will have a difficult time being a "player". That is sort
of like an ISP without routers or modems...
@ >
@ > 14. What relationship does ARIN have with other non-profit organizations
@ > such as the Internet Society, CIX, ISP/C, the Sierra Club, etc. ?
@
@ Same as with everyone else - if they need IP address space they are
@ welcome to apply.
@
Sounds good..."the same as everyone else"...that has a nice ring to it...
@ > 15. How does ARIN intend to "compete" with for-profit companies
@ > operating in the same arena ? Has the IRS ruled on this ?
@
@ I don't know of any for-profit IP registries.
@
Again, I suggest that you study the entire registry industry.
Also, you might want to look beyond IPv4. I started "selling"
unique 32 bit identifiers back in 1982. If you like, you can check
the ads in Dr. Dobb's Journal, one of the popular computer hobby
magazines.
IPv8 addresses will of course be handled completely differently
from IPv4 addresses. High performance addresses like that
need special handling...;-)
@ -Kim
@
@
@ >
@ > [1] @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9610.txt
@ >
@ > "IP Support
@ >
@ > Kim Hubbard met with Jon Postel (IANA), David Conrad (APNIC) and
@ > Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE) in California to discuss IP issues."
@ >
@ >
@ > [2] @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt
@ >
@ > "IP Support
@ >
@ > * Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with
@ > regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration
@ > Services."
@ >
@ > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ >
@
I appreciate your response. I am not sure if others
have asked, but will you remain as an employee of
Network Solutions, Inc. once ARIN is "launched" ?
==============================================
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 08:50:21 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:50:21 -0500
Subject: Details...details
Message-ID: <01BC934F.3EF563E0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:36 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote:
@
@ ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at
@ various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc.
@
Why do you leave out the important meetings ?
@ >
@ > [1] @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9610.txt
@ >
@ > "IP Support
@ >
@ > Kim Hubbard met with Jon Postel (IANA), David Conrad (APNIC) and
@ > Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE) in California to discuss IP issues."
@ >
@ >
@ > [2] @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt
@ >
@ > "IP Support
@ >
@ > * Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with
@ > regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration
@ > Services."
@ >
@ > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 08:59:44 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:59:44 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718075944.006fe5d8@texoma.net>
At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
...
>I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
>However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
>have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
>
>Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
>with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
>in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
>American countries other ARIN regions?
>
>To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
>suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
>"members" will get a say in what happens.
>
>First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
>hand.
Hi, John.
Having had only one cup of coffee this morning, I accidentally left out a
third question. Please excuse me.
In line with the other two questions, what were their respective answers
for RIPE?
If memory serves correctly, the temperature must be approaching 25C by this
time of year there in Amsterdam. Have a great weekend.
Best regards,
Larry
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 09:04:35 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:04:35 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID: <01BC9351.3C2AC040@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:14 PM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] wrote:
@ > these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order
@ > to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If
@ > we organize correctly in the beginning
@
@ This may come as a bit of a surprise. The beginning was some decades ago.
@
@ Hence, many folk see what you are seemingly trying to do is radically change
@ the status quo and momentum therefrom with little understanding of it or
@ sympathy for it. This may explain some of the opprobrium you receive.
@
@ randy
@
And some see you as protecting the "status quo" and the
resources that you have collected. Most of the ARIN Board
members have a vested interest in making sure that the
status quo is maintained, especially the NSI people.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone, especially
not the U.S. Government politicians. They have been dealing
with issues of resource allocation for years. The FTC and
DOJ are now involved in these issues. I have confidence that
these agencies will get to the bottom of things and progress
will be made.
In the meantime, people have to make positive progress on
solutions that work and provide more resources so that
those hoarding the resources do not continue to control
the future of economic development around the world.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 09:13:45 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:13:45 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Message-ID: <01BC9352.845510E0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:18 PM, Peter Veeck[SMTP:pveeck at regionalweb.texoma.net] wrote:
@
@ I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
@ selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
@ operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
@ multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
@ of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
@ registry.
@
@ They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
@ government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
@
If you view the Internet like a small country, you might note that
many small countries start with a government ruled by a dictator
or royalty. In many cases, that form of government never progresses
because the reource allocation is controlled to prevent a democratic
form of governance to emerge. People become beholding to the
dicator or "king" for resource allocation and they will fight to the
death, because they know, if they do not, they will be black-balled
and denied resources and therefore a future.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 09:22:21 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:22:21 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Message-ID: <01BC9353.B7599000@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 1:27 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote:
@ At 11:42 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote:
@ >
@ >It
@ >confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
@ >the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
@ >(downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
@ >with their space as they please.
@
@ There are 3 registries operating now, APNIC, NSI/InterNIC and RIPE.
@
@ They all allocate space from the same 32 bit range of IP numbers.
@
@ The coordination is done by IANA.
@
@
@Home acts as a registry for the Cable T.V. industry...
they obtained their addresses directly from Jon Postel (IANA).
Supposedly, there are other such registries. Details of
the workings of those inner circles are not discussed
in public. Only the "done deals" get announced.
For example, recently InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were
all given new /8 allocations at the same time. Where was
the public discussion of why these three registries were
given these resources ? Also, people claim that the
regional registries like APNIC have to apply and justify
just like anyone else. It seems odd that ALL THREE
would simultaneously need new /8s, and just when the
DOJ and the FTC started to investigate these matters.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 09:30:21 1997
From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:30:21 +0200
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:48:24 CDT."
<3.0.3.32.19970718074824.00bf95a8@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <9707181330.AA04479@ncc.ripe.net>
Larry Vaden writes:
* At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
* ...
* >I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
* >However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
* >have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
* >
* >Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
* >with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
* >in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
* >American countries other ARIN regions?
* >
* >To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
* >suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
* >"members" will get a say in what happens.
* >
* >First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
* >hand.
*
* Hi, John. It is good to hear from you again. I hope you will agree to
* continue helping with the discussion.
*
* As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will an
* Advisory Council be 100% elected by the members rather than by the BofT?
As I understand it:
100% takes a while yes.
33.33% in year one.
66.66% in year two.
This assumes that the staggered system in the proposal is followed and
nobody leaves the council, for whatever reason.
This means that within two years a majority of the Advisory council
would be directly member elected.
Once ARIN is running there will be yearly, I assume this is a minimum,
member meetings. If the membership clearly stated a wish for the
process to be hastened I do not see how the Advisory Council could
ignore this.
I suspect that the people originally chosen to sit on the
council will also be representative. They will all be members.
I also suspect that the quality of that council will be high and
therefore that the majority of the members will not wish the
speed of change increased.
* As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will the
* BofT be 100% elected by the members rather than by the organizers of ARIN?
Once again yes this takes time. It is staggered for stability.
A very important paragraph in the proposal is:
"This selection process is subject to revision based on community
input."
I interpret this as saying
"If the members, once there are members, disagree with he process they
can get it changed"
This is my interpretation. I'm assuming good intent from the original
BofT and AC.
In who's interest is it to ignore the members?
The people who want to get ARIN going want it to work. It can only
work if the members agree to how it works and who is running it.
My advice, which probably isn't worth much:-), is to work with those
who want an ARIN. Then iron out the wrinkles as a member when it's
running and doing what needs to be done.
There is no perfect system for IPv4 distribution. The one being
suggested works for the RIPE community and the Asian Pacific region.
There is no obvious reason why it won't work in the present InterNIC
area of operation.
The system is dynamic because the members, who are those with the
interest and the knowledge to make the Inet work, can get changes made
when they are needed.
Not everybody will agree with everything all of the time. Most people
will agree with most things most of the time. That is how democracy
works.
Kind regards,
John Crain
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* I appreciate and value your input.
*
* Best regards,
*
* Larry
*
*
From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 09:42:57 1997
From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:42:57 +0200
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:59:44 CDT."
<3.0.3.32.19970718075944.006fe5d8@texoma.net>
Message-ID: <9707181342.AA04990@ncc.ripe.net>
Larry Vaden writes:
* At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
* ...
* >I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
* >However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
* >have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
* >
* >Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
* >with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
* >in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
* >American countries other ARIN regions?
* >
* >To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
* >suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
* >"members" will get a say in what happens.
* >
* >First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
* >hand.
*
* Hi, John.
*
* Having had only one cup of coffee this morning, I accidentally left out a
* third question. Please excuse me.
*
* In line with the other two questions, what were their respective answers
* for RIPE?
RIPE works differently as we do not have a board of trustees. We are
about to change our system to something even more similar to ARIN.
People who are interested can read the De-Facto Organisational Rules.
The Executive Board works similarly to that of ARIN.
RIPE-NCC already has a commitee, open to all members, called the
contributors commitee. They will elect the first EB.
This is where RIPE-NCC and APNIC vary from the ARIN proposal.
Our organisations are already in existance and have been for
some time. We already have the membership base to elect the EB.
You will find he general principle doesn't vary that much from the
ARIN proposal.
* If memory serves correctly, the temperature must be approaching 25C by this
* time of year there in Amsterdam. Have a great weekend.
It's raining:-( Heavily:-(
Kind regards,
John Crain
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From scottlin at EMAIL.GCN.NET.TW Fri Jul 18 09:42:05 1997
From: scottlin at EMAIL.GCN.NET.TW (Scott Lin)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 21:42:05 +0800
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <33CF72AD.67E9@email.gcn.net.tw>
signoff naipr
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 09:49:58 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:49:58 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Message-ID: <01BC9357.93308680@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 6:42 PM, Robert T. Nelson[SMTP:rnelson at internoc.com] wrote:
@
@
@ Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
@ well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.
@
ARIN has no members. According to Gordon Cook, three
employees of Network Solutions, Inc. are the only people
actually involved with ARIN. Evikdently, the proposed Board
members are not yet involved, it is not clear why.
One of the ISOC leaders tells me that Board members step
into the hallway at ISOC meetings when votes are taken.
Apparently, this is to avoid any legal involvement and they
think they can later say, they were not involved.
Maybe ARIN intends to run the same way. With all of the
FTC and DOJ interest in these matters, it might be difficult
to get people to step forward to claim ownership of ARIN.
Obviously, the NSI people have a huge financial interest in
ARIN and making it happen. It should not be a surprise that
they are the onese pushing the proposal forward.
The NSF of course, just wants "out"...they seem to care
less what people do with U.S. Government assets as long
as they (the NSF) get to slip out the back, just like they
did with the transition from the NSF "backbone" to the
major carriers.
@ I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
@ addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
@ confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
@ the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
@ (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
@ with their space as they please.
@
That is not necessarily true. Space can be allocated, sold, delegated
etc. with restrictions about how it can be used. As an example, I have
suggested several times that multi-homed ISPs be provided /18 allocations
with the restriction that they can not advertise more specific routes
in the defaultless core.
@ Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
@ original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
@ original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
@ limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
@ functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
@ role of downstream registry.
@
Those people are not passing on anything. They are instead cultivating
a group of tax collectors who then feed back money to the original
leaders.
Why is ARIN given a status over NAIR ?
ARIN is new....why isn't it "downstream"...?
@ In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
@ down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
@ would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
@ completely open field operating the root zone.
@
No one is suggesting that, F.U.D. is not necessary, people see the
whole picture and they will not be fooled by these tactics.
@ In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
@ so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
@ relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.
@
@ I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
@ group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
@ to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
@ ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
@ can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
@ however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
@ the process.
@
Again, ARIN is three people from NSI.
Why do people in Virginia have a monopoly on
"Taxing the Internet"....?
@ If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
@ If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
@
@
My suggestion is to first develop a Root Name Server
Confederation. Those people will ultimately call the shots.
IPv4 allocations eventually make it into IN-ADDR.ARPA.
Here are some of the Root Name Server Confederations.
More are developing around the world.
http://doorstep.unety.net/Java/root97.html
@ > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
@ > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
@
@ Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
@ That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
@ up. We better get planning.
@
Yes, July 4, 1998 will be here sooner than we think....
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 09:55:56 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:55:56 -0500
Subject: Hijack ?
Message-ID: <01BC9358.782929E0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 6:38 PM, Robert T. Nelson[SMTP:rnelson at internoc.com] wrote:
@
@ > I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I
@ > think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge
@ > the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points,
@ > people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net.
@ > That, I do not accept.
@
@ I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is
@ best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for
@ you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however
@ I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be
@ better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and
@ working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from
@ entities who try to hijack the process.
@
ARIN is currently three people from Network Solutions, Inc.
This is a private company launching another private company
to apparently "inherit" U.S. Government assets (IPv4 Addresses)
to use to their financial advantage.
While this is going on, NSI is launching an IPO to raise
money to fund more private ventures.
Are people really supposed to sit around like fools and
watch this ?.....while you describe anyone that objects
as a "hijacker"...?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:05:22 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:05:22 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
Message-ID: <01BC9359.BA239DC0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 6:17 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
@ Eric and all,
@
@ I thought this post very well stated. I would add, that, as Thomas
@ Jefferson once siad, "The tree of lierty is watered by the blood of its
@ patriots". The battel here seems to be very much joined. Personal
@ attacks
@ and all. The battle is over what Eric said so well, REPRESENTIVE
@ system.
@ What seems to be the direction form ARIN, is not. This is starkly
@ evident ins some of the comments and creditbility attacks being made
@ against Eric, myself and others whom do not take on face value what
@ is being said from within ARIN and what is not being answered when
@ querried. This leads to suspicion. Once going down that path very
@ far, it is a long and never ending road. Let us all attempt
@ to find inclusion for all in this process instead of attacking
@ any person(S) integraty here.
@
Jeff,
The tactics are well-known and documented....
People set up a mailing list and then they discourage discussion.
Once the list goes quiet, they tell government leaders there is
"consensus"...
If they can not get the list to quiet down, they make another
list and direct people over there...
If new people enter either list they are told they are "clueless".
Some people put their tails between their legs and run and hide
in shame (even though they are not clueless).
People are now very educated on all of these matters. The
U.S. Government agencies are also becoming educated.
The FTC and the DOJ are stepping in where the NSF failed.
The problems are not new. The Internet leaders may try to
confuse government leaders with jargon and buzzwords,
but politicians are beginning to clearly see the picture.
The resources are controlled to financially benefit a few
people and companies are denied resources to prevent
them from competing. It is not a new problem. I am sure
that solutions will come and in some cases, the law will
likely be swift and just....at least in the U.S.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:08:47 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:08:47 -0500
Subject: Follow the money...it tells the whole story...
Message-ID: <01BC935A.345A3CC0@webster.unety.net>
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 6:38 PM, Robert T. Nelson[SMTP:rnelson at internoc.com] wrote:
@
@ >
@ > My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work.
@ > Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do
@ > you propose we raise and deal with those issues?
@
@ It is my goal to make these Public trusts, remain in the public trust, in
@ a way that the public can trust. Unfortunately, spin gets out of control
@ very quickly on the net, and it is very difficult for the organizers to
@ respond to everyone's complaints personally. They are then accused of
@ being secretive. Mostly they're trying to get something done. For you. And
@ me. And them (don't forget them) ;->
@
@ Hopefully I have made myself more clear.
@
I hope this is clear...."follow the money...it tells the whole story"...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 10:12:23 1997
From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:12:23 +0200
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:22:21 CDT."
<01BC9353.B7599000@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <9707181412.AA06293@ncc.ripe.net>
Hello Jim,
*
* For example, recently InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were
* all given new /8 allocations at the same time. Where was
* the public discussion of why these three registries were
* given these resources ? Also, people claim that the
* regional registries like APNIC have to apply and justify
* just like anyone else. It seems odd that ALL THREE
* would simultaneously need new /8s, and just when the
* DOJ and the FTC started to investigate these matters.
All information concerning assignments from the /8's held by RIPE-NCC
are publicly available in our database (whois.ripe.net).
The /8's allocated by the NCC to it's registries are 193/8, 194/8,
195/8 and 62/8. This for the Regional registries through Europe,
Skandanavia, Russia, The middle east and northern Africa.
We do sometime take the liberty of assuming our registries don't
want us to run out of addresses that we can further allocate to
them for their customers use. I have not yet heard of a registry
complaining about this.
Our membership are regularly informed at RIPE meetings when we need
or have obtained new address blocks. The RIPE-NCC is an open organisation.
We publish all documents and information publicly so if you want to
take the time to do your home work you can find most information.
Obviously information pertaining to our registries customers networks
and the plans etc for their networks is not available.
Why would APNIC or RIPE-NCC make decisions based on acts by the
American Department of Justice or the FTC? The InterNET is not
America. In fact there are rumours circulating that some of us outside
the USA even have connections to it:-)
I can assure you that the reason the RIPE-NCC requested more space,
and got it, was because it was needed to continue allocating addresses
to our registries.
Kind regards,
John Crain
RIPE NCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 18 04:07:13 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:07:13 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
References:
Message-ID: <33CF2431.7239@ix.netcom.com>
Robert and all,
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Peter Veeck wrote:
>
> [snipped beginning of discussion to save space]
>
> >
> > Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single --
> > versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't
> > feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in
> > any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer:
> > multiple smaller computers over one big computer.
> > multiple administrators rather than a single administrator.
> > multiple registries rather than a single registry.
> > multiple suppliers rather than a single source.
>
> As a general rule I agree with you. Redundancy is important in operational
> systems.
>
> > I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization
> > providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce
> > the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the
> > failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points,
> > backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk.
> >
> > If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or
> > organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or
> > organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON
> > IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the
> > Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from
> > Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider
> > and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that
> > organization.
> >
> > I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
> > selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
> > operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
> > multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
> > of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
> > registry.
> >
>
> Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
> well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.
I hope you are correct here Robert.
>
> I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
> addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
> confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
> the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
> (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
> with their space as they please.
Here is where I find a VERY BIG problem. There should be set
procedures
by which IP allocations can be assinged. RFC2050 and RFC1917, do not
have this spelled out very well. As such and form what I can
understand,
form posts by ARIN board members, these RFC's SEEM to be the guidline,
hence there is a problem.
>
> Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
> original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
> original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
> limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
> functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
> role of downstream registry.
NAIR could also fulfil the same role that ARIN does. ANd I hope we
do.
>
> In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
> down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
> would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
> completely open field operating the root zone.
I disagree greatly here. I believe that with some good procedures
and requirnments any number of orgs could become registries and play
a part in operating a segment of the root zone.
>
> In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
> so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
> relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.
Very true. Those that put together the gTLD-MoU seem to be prime
examples.
>
> I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
> group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
> to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
> ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
> can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
> however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
> the process.
I agree that derailing the process or at present, lack there of, is
wise. ANd as in all things there is always room for improvment.
>
> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
Yes, do form a registry and join NAIR, do not sign the gTLD-MoU. That
contract is flawed at best.
>
> > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
>
> Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
> That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
> up. We better get planning.
Agreed! And the battle is joined NOW, I believe.
>
> Yours,
>
> Rob Nelson
> rnelson at internoc.com
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:21:57 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:21:57 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Message-ID: <01BC935C.0AEE6080@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 9:12 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote:
@
@
@ Hello Jim,
@
@ *
@ * For example, recently InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were
@ * all given new /8 allocations at the same time. Where was
@ * the public discussion of why these three registries were
@ * given these resources ? Also, people claim that the
@ * regional registries like APNIC have to apply and justify
@ * just like anyone else. It seems odd that ALL THREE
@ * would simultaneously need new /8s, and just when the
@ * DOJ and the FTC started to investigate these matters.
@
@
@
@ I can assure you that the reason the RIPE-NCC requested more space,
@ and got it, was because it was needed to continue allocating addresses
@ to our registries.
@
Fine...and ALL THREE regional registries just happened to
run out at the same time....correct ?....I guess it did not
have anything to do with the DOJ and FTC "heat"...correct ?
By the way...where is the Regional Registry for...
Africa
South America
Canada
Mexico and Central America
Carribean
Australia and New Zealand
to name a few...
???
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:28:13 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:28:13 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <01BC935C.EAECE800@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 8:30 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at RIPE.NET] wrote:
@
@
@ The people who want to get ARIN going want it to work. It can only
@ work if the members agree to how it works and who is running it.
@
The people behind ARIN are the SAME people that
gave us the $50 .COM, .NET and .ORG "taxes".
They are in this for the money, pure and simple.
People are not stupid, please do not insult them...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:36:15 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:36:15 -0500
Subject: Democracy
Message-ID: <01BC935E.0AEC52C0@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 8:30 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at RIPE.NET] wrote:
@
@
@ Not everybody will agree with everything all of the time. Most people
@ will agree with most things most of the time. That is how democracy
@ works.
@
Democracy implies of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Here are some of the people that have real networks, real routers
and real servers and real money invested to deliver real services.
http://doorstep.unety.net/Java/root97.html
I suggest that these groups and more to follow will each bring
2 delegates to a variety of Internet Governance round tables
for decision-making. People can line up behind these delegates
to make sure they are represented. If they like they can form
a new Confederation to seek representation.
It is curious that Europe has yet to field a coherent Root
Name Server Confederation....why is that ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 10:43:25 1997
From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:43:25 +0200
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:21:57 CDT."
<01BC935C.0AEE6080@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <9707181443.AA07517@ncc.ripe.net>
Jim Fleming writes:
* On Friday, July 18, 1997 9:12 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net]
* wrote:
* @
* @
* @ Hello Jim,
* @
* @ *
* @ * For example, recently InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were
* @ * all given new /8 allocations at the same time. Where was
* @ * the public discussion of why these three registries were
* @ * given these resources ? Also, people claim that the
* @ * regional registries like APNIC have to apply and justify
* @ * just like anyone else. It seems odd that ALL THREE
* @ * would simultaneously need new /8s, and just when the
* @ * DOJ and the FTC started to investigate these matters.
* @
* @
*
* @
* @ I can assure you that the reason the RIPE-NCC requested more space,
* @ and got it, was because it was needed to continue allocating addresses
* @ to our registries.
* @
*
* Fine...and ALL THREE regional registries just happened to
* run out at the same time....correct ?
Hmm, I don't work for the other two. I assume so. I wasn't actually
aware that they recieved allocatons at the same time. You learn
something new everyday.
Which specific ranges do you refer to?
....I guess it did not
* have anything to do with the DOJ and FTC "heat"...correct ?
Ours certainly didn't. Can't talk for the other two.
I'm amazed that you are so ill informed that you asked the following
question but I'll answer it anyway.
* By the way...where is the Regional Registry for...
*
* Africa
There is a proposal for an AfriNIC. At present is split north/south
between RIPE-NCC and InterNIC.
* South America
* Canada
* Mexico and Central America
* Carribean
Your on the ARIN list and you don't know this?
At the moment InterNiC to be replaced by ARIN, when it gets going.
* Australia and New Zealand
APNIC
Kind regards,
John Crain
RIPE NCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jul 18 10:47:59 1997
From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:47:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <199707181447.KAA10149@newdev.harvard.edu>
> They are in this for the money, pure and simple.
total unadulterated BS
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 10:52:27 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:52:27 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <01BC9360.4DC48700@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 5:47 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > They are in this for the money, pure and simple.
@
@ total unadulterated BS
@
@
Most of the ARIN web site focuses on fees....
this, despite very little effort to justify the fees...
(i.e. no budgets, etc.)
All people here is ARIN is like APNIC and RIPE
and they are now tax collectors that are feeding
funding back to the IANA.
This is all about money and funding because the
NSF is withdrawing their gravy train...in some cases...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jul 18 11:02:23 1997
From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <199707181502.LAA10213@newdev.harvard.edu>
> All people here is ARIN is like APNIC and RIPE
> and they are now tax collectors that are feeding
> funding back to the IANA.
so now it is not the unpaid ARIN board members that are in it
for the money it is the iana building a pile to retire on?
crap - total crap
the only thing that I and the other ARIN bot members are getting for
our involvement is the honor of having Jim Flemming accuse us of
gold digging - an honor I could do without
Scott
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 18 04:31:04 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:31:04 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References:
Message-ID: <33CF29C8.7898@ix.netcom.com>
Robert and all,
First let me say, that I DO appritiate you candor and concern. >;)
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
> > Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about
> ^^^^^^
> Williams
>
> [sorry, Jeff]
No problem. >;) WOndered about that earlier.. LOL!
>
> > Robert,
>
> > I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I
> > think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge
> > the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points,
> > people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net.
> > That, I do not accept.
>
> I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is
> best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for
> you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however
> I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be
> better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and
> working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from
> entities who try to hijack the process.
I don't think that Eric or anyone associated with NAIR is intrested
in Hijacking anything, if that is your inferance here. What I believe
NAIR is considering is a parallel situation to ARIN, but with the
LITTLE guys in mind. I don't see this in any of the documentation
for ARIN. In fact from what has been posted here the intrest seems
to be to protect the BIG IPS's, not the little regional providers.
In fact on several posts, that has been spelled out quite clearly.
Hence I have GREAT disatisfaction. Just becouse we are small doesn't
mean we are stupid! I and many other small regional ISP's want an
equal footing in the allocation of IP space as well and Registry service
should we so choose. This is where many regional ISP's have had trouble
in serviving becouse of the disperportionate allocation of IP space
and the terrible managment of Domain names from InterNic at times.
Check the legal record's yourself, it is avalible to anyone who CARES
to reasearch it.
>
> >
> > I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it
> > should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of
> > some broadly representative group. I question whether that has
> > occurred.
>
> You are currently not subject to a representative system at all. ARIN will
> bring more representation to the process, not less.
True, better, but not nearly good enough. The process of needing to
get IP space form an upstream provider at their whim, isn't
representative
at all.
>
> I suggest to you, and to Peter, that you join ARIN as members, and make
> your voice heard, and subject to the consensus there.
Define consensus. I suggest it should be by majority rule, not a
rough
consensus.
>
> >
> > I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance.
> > I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
> > should be organized.
>
> Unfortunately, this is a computer. Unless you have a better programming
> model, I think you need to stick with it for a while. ARIN seems to me to
> be a step in the right direction. I think that in no more than 10 years
> we will have to go at this again, to wean the Internet further off of its'
> "parents".
It won't even take a year.
>
> >
> > You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and
> > decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was
> > a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people
> > an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such
> > a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to
> > respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or
> > integrity.
>
> I will certainly respond to this. I have not been actively involved in the
> debate over ARIN. There are parts of the proposal that I am not wild
> about. I am personally pleased that leaders in the Internet Community have
> come up with an idea to get NSI out of the IP Space business, even if it
> takes NSI to start it up. It is a step in the right direction.
>
> A public vote should not necessarily occur on the issue of numeric space.
> Assignment of numbers is somewhat inherently (to me, anyway)
> non-democratic. If you can show me specifically how you intend
> to assign numbers from multiple registries, without having a coordinating
> body, I am very interested. This may sound like the "benevolent dictator"
> system, and to a degree, it is. It will eventually have to be torn apart,
> and a new system born.
There has never been a succesful "benevolent dictator", approach
in my life time. I doubt that there will be. Hence many's concerns.
>
> I do not attack your integrity. I believe that you do what you feel is
> right and just. And i will defend your right to speak your mind, while I
> disagree with you in the same breath.
Fair enough! >;)
>
> >
> > I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
> > sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people
> > involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an
> > IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be
> > entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use
> > an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from
> > his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board
> > appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with
> > my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes
> > that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be
> > dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded
> > to me on these points.
>
> You can hardly form an entity without having a group of "founders".
> As far as peasants go (yes, poor choice of words) do you let your users
> control your network? If you did, wouldn't it be more of a knotwork? It
> really isn't much different. Remove yourself from your personal stake in
> the issue, and look at it objectively.
This is a market driven ecconomy, hence the users have a stake. In
fact
without them there is no internet. SO, I believe that the users need
protection, yes, and also a say.
>
> I would hesitate to give numeric assignments the stature of governance. I
> think that that word has sufficient connotations that if we use it in this
> sense, we will set ourselves up for Real Governance (tm) by an Internet
> Government (tm). I do not support that Internet. I think that we don't
> know how to govern, much less govern cyberspace.
Well we better learn.
>
> >
> > Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory
> > board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know?
> > Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process
> > should go on behind closed doors?
>
> By my reading of the proposal, it will be as representative as the
> membership insist that it be. If the BoT selects Advisory Council members
> from the membership, then you should be out there selling ARIN as much as
> the next guy to make sure 1) you have wide representation via members and
> Advisory Council seats and 2) the power to oust. The membership will
> consist, by my guess, of the serious stakeholders in IP Space, and those
> who feel qualified to add to the process. If this is not the
> representation you want at ARIN, you should be pushing your kind of people
> to participate. The process, for the initial term, seems fairly
> straighforward, and certainly not behind closed doors. I think you should
> make it you goal to make *damn sure* that come next year, as ARIN reviews
> these processes, that you make your voice heard via your membership and
> the Advisory Council.
>
> >
> > My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work.
> > Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do
> > you propose we raise and deal with those issues?
>
> It is my goal to make these Public trusts, remain in the public trust, in
> a way that the public can trust. Unfortunately, spin gets out of control
> very quickly on the net, and it is very difficult for the organizers to
> respond to everyone's complaints personally. They are then accused of
> being secretive. Mostly they're trying to get something done. For you. And
> me. And them (don't forget them) ;->
I agree here. Anit this is very unfortunate indeed. I am sure that
NAIR will be happy to find ways to work with ARIN.
>
> Hopefully I have made myself more clear.
>
> Yours,
>
> Rob Nelson
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 18 04:39:57 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:39:57 +0100
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN
References: <01BC9359.BA239DC0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33CF2BDD.2D9C@ix.netcom.com>
Jim and all,
Thanks Jim for your comments. I agree with them completly. It is
refreshing to me to see that there are some here that seem to see
the forest for the trees. I hope others will soon follow.
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 17, 1997 6:17 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> @ Eric and all,
> @
> @ I thought this post very well stated. I would add, that, as Thomas
> @ Jefferson once siad, "The tree of lierty is watered by the blood of its
> @ patriots". The battel here seems to be very much joined. Personal
> @ attacks
> @ and all. The battle is over what Eric said so well, REPRESENTIVE
> @ system.
> @ What seems to be the direction form ARIN, is not. This is starkly
> @ evident ins some of the comments and creditbility attacks being made
> @ against Eric, myself and others whom do not take on face value what
> @ is being said from within ARIN and what is not being answered when
> @ querried. This leads to suspicion. Once going down that path very
> @ far, it is a long and never ending road. Let us all attempt
> @ to find inclusion for all in this process instead of attacking
> @ any person(S) integraty here.
> @
>
> Jeff,
>
> The tactics are well-known and documented....
>
> People set up a mailing list and then they discourage discussion.
> Once the list goes quiet, they tell government leaders there is
> "consensus"...
>
> If they can not get the list to quiet down, they make another
> list and direct people over there...
>
> If new people enter either list they are told they are "clueless".
> Some people put their tails between their legs and run and hide
> in shame (even though they are not clueless).
>
> People are now very educated on all of these matters. The
> U.S. Government agencies are also becoming educated.
> The FTC and the DOJ are stepping in where the NSF failed.
>
> The problems are not new. The Internet leaders may try to
> confuse government leaders with jargon and buzzwords,
> but politicians are beginning to clearly see the picture.
> The resources are controlled to financially benefit a few
> people and companies are denied resources to prevent
> them from competing. It is not a new problem. I am sure
> that solutions will come and in some cases, the law will
> likely be swift and just....at least in the U.S.
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 11:02:35 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:02:35 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <01BC9361.B84E9600@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 6:02 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > All people here is ARIN is like APNIC and RIPE
@ > and they are now tax collectors that are feeding
@ > funding back to the IANA.
@
@ so now it is not the unpaid ARIN board members that are in it
@ for the money it is the iana building a pile to retire on?
@
@ crap - total crap
@
@ the only thing that I and the other ARIN bot members are getting for
@ our involvement is the honor of having Jim Flemming accuse us of
@ gold digging - an honor I could do without
@
@ Scott
@
@
According to Gordon Cook, you are not even on the Board.
The Board consists of three Network Solutions, Inc. employees.
Also, of course ARIN is going to have ceremonial people
on the Board to lend legitimacy to their venture. Many
companies do that. This is not new.
Maybe you can review why each of the Board members
were selected ?
Who represents Africa ?
Who represents Canada ?
Who represents South America ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 11:23:48 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:23:48 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <01BC9364.AF2E6FC0@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 6:02 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > All people here is ARIN is like APNIC and RIPE
@ > and they are now tax collectors that are feeding
@ > funding back to the IANA.
@
@ so now it is not the unpaid ARIN board members that are in it
@ for the money it is the iana building a pile to retire on?
@
@ crap - total crap
@
@ the only thing that I and the other ARIN bot members are getting for
@ our involvement is the honor of having Jim Flemming accuse us of
@ gold digging - an honor I could do without
@
@ Scott
@
@
Can you tell us what ever came of these decisions ?
You were at the meeting...correct ?
June 1996
ISOC Board of Trustees - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
"RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society
endorse in principle the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation
of International Top Level Domains", dated June 1996 by Jon Postel,
and approve the role assigned to the Internet Society in this proposal.
The Board authorises Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal
to include a business plan for review and approval by the Board."
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jul 18 11:33:18 1997
From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <199707181533.LAA10422@newdev.harvard.edu>
> Can you tell us what ever came of these decisions ?
not related in any way to ARIN - which at least some of us were talking
about
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 11:33:09 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:33:09 -0500
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
Message-ID: <01BC9365.FD889D20@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 6:33 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote:
@ > Can you tell us what ever came of these decisions ?
@
@ not related in any way to ARIN - which at least some of us were talking
@ about
@
Sure it is related to ARIN...it is all about resource allocation.
ARIN depends on IN-ADDR.ARPA.
ARPA is a Top Level Domain.
ARIN depends on this Top Level Domain.
That meeting was about the future of Top Level Domains.
Therefore, that meeting is related to ARIN.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From cook at NETAXS.COM Fri Jul 18 11:39:41 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970718074824.00bf95a8@texoma.net>
Message-ID:
john's comment is extremely well written and appropriate. To answer
larry's questions he is I believe going to need a copy of the ARIN by-
laws.
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
> At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
> ...
> >I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
> >However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
> >have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
> >
> >Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
> >with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
> >in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
> >American countries other ARIN regions?
> >
> >To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
> >suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
> >"members" will get a say in what happens.
> >
> >First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
> >hand.
>
> Hi, John. It is good to hear from you again. I hope you will agree to
> continue helping with the discussion.
>
> As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will an
> Advisory Council be 100% elected by the members rather than by the BofT?
>
> As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will the
> BofT be 100% elected by the members rather than by the organizers of ARIN?
>
> I appreciate and value your input.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Larry
>
From cook at NETAXS.COM Fri Jul 18 11:49:54 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC
In-Reply-To: <9707181330.AA04479@ncc.ripe.net>
Message-ID:
A calm, cool dispassionate voice of reason! Wonderful post John.
Absolutely refreshing!!
*****THANK YOU******
************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
>
> Larry Vaden writes:
> * At 12:51 PM 7/18/97 +0200, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
> * ...
> * >I agree that US citizens know what their version of democracy is.
> * >However electing someone to represent the citizens only works when you
> * >have citizens. ARIN does not yet have members, so who gets to vote.
> * >
> * >Who is going to decide this? Who is going to contact all the people
> * >with an interest in the Inet, As you don't have members yet, not only
> * >in the US, ARIN is not a registry for the USA only, but in south
> * >American countries other ARIN regions?
> * >
> * >To take a vote you first need to define who the voters are. I would
> * >suggest that the ARIN proposal clearly points to the fact that the
> * >"members" will get a say in what happens.
> * >
> * >First you need the members and to get them ARIN needs to exist before
> * >hand.
> *
> * Hi, John. It is good to hear from you again. I hope you will agree to
> * continue helping with the discussion.
> *
> * As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will an
> * Advisory Council be 100% elected by the members rather than by the BofT?
>
>
> As I understand it:
>
> 100% takes a while yes.
>
> 33.33% in year one.
> 66.66% in year two.
>
>
> This assumes that the staggered system in the proposal is followed and
> nobody leaves the council, for whatever reason.
>
> This means that within two years a majority of the Advisory council
> would be directly member elected.
>
> Once ARIN is running there will be yearly, I assume this is a minimum,
> member meetings. If the membership clearly stated a wish for the
> process to be hastened I do not see how the Advisory Council could
> ignore this.
>
> I suspect that the people originally chosen to sit on the
> council will also be representative. They will all be members.
>
> I also suspect that the quality of that council will be high and
> therefore that the majority of the members will not wish the
> speed of change increased.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * As you read the ARIN proposal, how soon after formation of ARIN will the
> * BofT be 100% elected by the members rather than by the organizers of ARIN?
>
> Once again yes this takes time. It is staggered for stability.
>
> A very important paragraph in the proposal is:
>
> "This selection process is subject to revision based on community
> input."
>
> I interpret this as saying
>
> "If the members, once there are members, disagree with he process they
> can get it changed"
>
>
> This is my interpretation. I'm assuming good intent from the original
> BofT and AC.
>
> In who's interest is it to ignore the members?
>
> The people who want to get ARIN going want it to work. It can only
> work if the members agree to how it works and who is running it.
>
> My advice, which probably isn't worth much:-), is to work with those
> who want an ARIN. Then iron out the wrinkles as a member when it's
> running and doing what needs to be done.
>
> There is no perfect system for IPv4 distribution. The one being
> suggested works for the RIPE community and the Asian Pacific region.
> There is no obvious reason why it won't work in the present InterNIC
> area of operation.
>
> The system is dynamic because the members, who are those with the
> interest and the knowledge to make the Inet work, can get changes made
> when they are needed.
>
> Not everybody will agree with everything all of the time. Most people
> will agree with most things most of the time. That is how democracy
> works.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> John Crain
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> These are my personal opinions, they do not necessarily reflect those
> of my employees and the organisation for which I work.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> * I appreciate and value your input.
> *
> * Best regards,
> *
> * Larry
> *
> *
>
From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Fri Jul 18 12:02:17 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:02:17 -0400
Subject: Hijack ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:55:56 CDT."
<01BC9358.782929E0@webster.unety.net>
References: <01BC9358.782929E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <199707181602.MAA16892@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:55:56 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
> ARIN is currently three people from Network Solutions, Inc.
> This is a private company launching another private company
> to apparently "inherit" U.S. Government assets (IPv4 Addresses)
> to use to their financial advantage.
I would love to hear the legal argument in an international court of law
stating that the US Government *owns* integers.
Remember - it's *NOT* about ownership. It's about coordinating *registering*
who is *using* what integers to prevent collisions and similar problems.
You don't own your Social Security number - it is registered so nobody else
(hopefully) uses it.
You don't own your credit card numbers - but somebody keeps track of which
ones you use and which ones are somebody else-s.
You don't own the license plate number on your car - but somebody runs a
registry to make sure that *you* have *your* number and not somebody else's.
Some of these registries (some of which are even governmental) charge you
for this service (credit cards, license plates), others are paid for out
of your tax dollars for the "common good" (social security numbers).
IP allocation has been in this last category (free governmental) for so
long that the attempt to move it to some other category (registry by a
for-pay private organization) that the resulting mental stress is causing
some of us to lose track of what is *really* going on.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From pveeck at regionalweb.texoma.net Fri Jul 18 11:50:14 1997
From: pveeck at regionalweb.texoma.net (Peter Veeck)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:50:14 -0500
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Message-ID: <33CF90B6.29EA@regionalweb.texoma.net>
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
[snipped beginning of discussion to save space]
>
> Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
> well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.
I have some problems with the proposed organizational structure of ARIN
(http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html).
1. "An annual membership fee of $1,000 (US) will be charged to all
entities joining ARIN. Membership is open to any entity/individual
wishing to join, regardless of whether the entity/individual receives
address space directly from ARIN."
This strikes me as a poll tax. Pay $1000.00 and you can vote. Donate
$50,000.00 and you can get your picture taken in the Whitehouse. It may
be a necessary evil, but not one I can support. I can understand the
need for funding but I support a user charge on IP addresses rather than
a membership fee.
2. "Selection of the Board of Trustees: ... the initial Board of
Trustees will be selected by the individuals presently responsible for,
and consequently most knowledgeable of, the management of IP addresses
under the current arrangement."
This is reasonable for to set up the incorporation paperwork and get to
a formation meeting. But:
"... two expiring after the first year, two expiring after the second
year, and two expiring after the third year."
Strikes me as a bit more than enough time to do the paperwork. I don't
really understand why a board can't be elected at the first
organizational meeting by the membership.
3. Is it necessary for the members of the BoT or the Advisory Council
to be members of ARIN? It is not stated.
4. "The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's
membership by the Board of Trustees."
I see no reason that the Advisory Council cannot be elected at the first
organizational meeting.
5. "The membership fee entitles the entity/individual to attend the two
ARIN membership meetings held each year ..."
When are these meetings? Or more to the point when is the first
organizational one.
6. "... and to take advantage of other membership benefits to be
determined, such as the opportunity to nominate and elect members of
ARIN's Advisory Council. It is anticipated that, under this fee-based
framework, the membership will provide a focused, considered, and
responsible approach to addressing and solving the challenges facing the
Internets numeric addressing scheme."
This sounds like the argument made in Congress for pay raises. "We need
to raise the pay to get more qualified members." At election time I
don't remember any of the candidates claiming that they weren't
qualified.
ARIN is not a democratic or even a representative form of organization.
To me it looks like "noblise oblige".
> I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
> addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
> confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
> the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
> (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
> with their space as they please.
Agreed, but the "one entity assigning space in the Original Place"
should be representative of the entirety. i.e. software developers,
hardware manufacturers, end users, Corporate users, backbone providers,
educational institutions, local service providers, and any other
identifiable groups.
> Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
> original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
> original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
> limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
> functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
> role of downstream registry.
Yes, but the operating officers of ARIN are being taken from NSI. NSI
has not shown a propensity for delegation or standardized procedures.
Bill Manning reposted a message (I only include the top for reference):
Subject: Re: that observation.... (fwd)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: bmanning at ISI.EDU
To: pagan at apnic.net, nair-founders at texoma.net
Hey You! (and the others, you should know who you are) Perhaps this
bit'o'wisdom might help. (cleaning out the mail queue. sorry if you
have seen this before)
> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: that observation....
The original post is dated last year yet it could have been written
today. Is there reason to believe, with the same administrative staff,
that it will not be appropriate next year.
> In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
> down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
> would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
> completely open field operating the root zone.
It would probably be better to add servers with new administrators for
new TLDs rather than change the existing operators.
> In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
> so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
> relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.
Rapid growth can be as debilitating if not more so than no growth. Look
at what has happened to some of the most popular software companies
(Borland, Lotus, Word Perfect). I know several small business that are
not here now because they didn't get their business procedures and
accounting in place before the flood hit.
> I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
> group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
> to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
> ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
> can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
> however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
> the process.
>
> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
These things are equivalent to governance, I don't want to govern--only
to be represented. I have not given up on the present structure, I only
want to see it modified to be representative. If I ask a question of my
(supposed) representative, it is for my enlightenment and I do not
expect to be snubbed.
> > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
I can answer this. A dictator that does not exist is very benevolent.
> Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
> That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
> up. We better get planning.
If we can modify the present system to accommodate the growth and new
participants, it might not come to this. Just about anything can be
done with the proper algorithms. Additionally, there are usually
multiple ways to solve a problem.
The sad thing with revolutions is that many proceed like bankruptcies.
The management that bankrupts the company in the first place is the
management entrusted to bring it out. Management gets a pay raise;
employees loose retirement, benefits, and pay. How many companies do
you know of that were bankrupt by hourly workers?
Pete
RegionalWeb.Texoma.net
From jdfalk at priori.net Fri Jul 18 12:26:57 1997
From: jdfalk at priori.net (J.D. Falk)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:26:57 -0700
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
In-Reply-To: <199707161826.LAA09139@chimp.juniper.net> [9707.16]
References: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> <199707161826.LAA09139@chimp.juniper.net>
Message-ID: <19970718092657.15591@priori.net>
It's taken me a little while to respond here, because I
wanted to give this a lot of thought before saying anything.
I apologize if anybody gets more than one of these; e-mail
me if you need a procmail recipe to get rid of duplicates
(based on the Message-ID header.)
On Jul 16, Tony Li wrote:
> Network Working Group T. Li
> INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks
> November 1996
>
>
> Internet Service Provider Address Coalitions (ISPACs)
>
[ . . . ]
Overall, this is a cool idea; it sounds both technically and
sociopolitically feasable. IMHO, the most important passage
is probably this one:
> [ . . . ] The
> address space request from an ISPAC should be regarded as if it came
> from any ISP with the properties of the union of the members. No
> special privileges are accorded to requests from ISPACs, so normal
> justifications for address space would apply.
So, unless somebody from the IANA or one of the regional
registries can find a problem with this, I can't see any
reason why it wouldn't work RIGHT NOW for some people.
Of course, this isn't the best way to go for everybody. To use
what seems to be everybody's favorite example these days, Priori
wouldn't be likely to join an ISPAC because we are building a
nationwide backbone (what used to be called "tier one"), but I
can't think of any reason why we -- or any backbone provider
with half a clue -- wouldn't support our customers in doing
something like an ISPAC, assuming they could handle announcing
the routes to us correctly.
If anybody sets one of these up, let me know how it works out.
*********************************************************
J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840
Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 12:24:10 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:24:10 -0500
Subject: deflating fleming was Re: Hijack ?
Message-ID: <01BC936D.1DF75CC0@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 7:08 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@
@ Jimmy: This is a private company launching another private company
@ to apparently "inherit" U.S. Government assets (IPv4 Addresses)
@ to use to their financial advantage.
@
@ Cook: this is a lie on two accounts. ARIN is not a private comapny and
@ it won't be using IP address for it's financial advantage.
@
Is it going to be a public company ?
I have heard suggestions that it will have an IPO, but I assumed
that was not being pursued.
Without those IP addresses, ARIN can not sell, or lease them.
ARIN can also not offer services for financial compensation.
Are you saying that this will be volunteers ?
If not...
What will the salaries be of ARIN employees ?
Where will those employees be coming from ?
Again, you have dodged the question of whether you
benefit financially from ARIN. Why is that ?
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 18 12:28:15 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:28:15 -0500
Subject: Hijack ?
Message-ID: <01BC936D.B04D3720@webster.unety.net>
On Friday, July 18, 1997 11:02 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
@ On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:55:56 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
@ > ARIN is currently three people from Network Solutions, Inc.
@ > This is a private company launching another private company
@ > to apparently "inherit" U.S. Government assets (IPv4 Addresses)
@ > to use to their financial advantage.
@
@ I would love to hear the legal argument in an international court of law
@ stating that the US Government *owns* integers.
@
@ Remember - it's *NOT* about ownership. It's about coordinating *registering*
@ who is *using* what integers to prevent collisions and similar problems.
@
@ You don't own your Social Security number - it is registered so nobody else
@ (hopefully) uses it.
@
@ You don't own your credit card numbers - but somebody keeps track of which
@ ones you use and which ones are somebody else-s.
@
@ You don't own the license plate number on your car - but somebody runs a
@ registry to make sure that *you* have *your* number and not somebody else's.
@
@ Some of these registries (some of which are even governmental) charge you
@ for this service (credit cards, license plates), others are paid for out
@ of your tax dollars for the "common good" (social security numbers).
@
@ IP allocation has been in this last category (free governmental) for so
@ long that the attempt to move it to some other category (registry by a
@ for-pay private organization) that the resulting mental stress is causing
@ some of us to lose track of what is *really* going on.
@ --
Here was a response posted on another list...
With Internet resource allocation issues the discussions
always seem to divide along the lines of private vs. state
ownership.
In the U.S., most people are comfortable with the model
of private ownership backed by a state safety net. People
own land, but if they die or disappear the state has methods
to absorb the land back into the system. In some cases
the state has the ability to take resources for the good of
the society for example when land is purchased for highways.
The Internet seems to have just the opposite model. The
Internet leaders continue to try to build a system based
on state ownership backed by a private safety net. The
private safety net is a small circle of people who attempt
to work behind the scenes to keep the communist/socialist
Internet running.
In my opinion, this second model does not scale and it
will never mesh well with societies that have already
worked out the logistics of private ownership backed by
the state. The small circle of friends can never replace
the state and investors will expect private ownership to
make sure that their investments are secure.
It seems unlikely that the Internet leaders are going to
change their ways. By acting as the safety net, all of the
financial rewards that normally go to the state, such as
taxes, go to the small circle of friends. Meanwhile, people
are expected to build businesses on resources that are
supposedly owned by this virtual "cyber-state". In many
cases, there is no state in the picture because the leaders
of the government are clueless and the small circle of
friends work hard to make sure the state does not become
educated and enter the picture.
In summary, the academic, socialist system that was
used to formulate the Internet does not have a smooth
migration path into democratic and capitalist societies
as found in the U.S. Converting the Internet is almost
as difficult as converting the Soviet Union to capitalism.
Resources owned by the "cyber-state" have to now be made
private and one would expect the state to provide the
safety net. The safety net position is occupied by private
people that are looking to cash in on their work and they
are clearly not going to move.
This deadlock situation will be deadly for the net...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 18 06:34:00 1997
From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:34:00 +0100
Subject: Info on NSI'srecent DNS system failure
References: <199707180033.AA021416013@martigny.ai.mit.edu> <33CF8E3E.1A31@new-york.org>
Message-ID: <33CF4698.506D@ix.netcom.com>
Bill,
Thanks very much for this pointer. Very intresting article. I had
noticed some problems myself last week. I wonder if the IANA or
those at the now defuncked IAHC, have any comments. ??????
Bill Semich wrote:
>
> FYI, re: NSI's latest problems:
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/1997/07/1801-crash.html
>
> Bill Semich
> Internet Users
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
From nlj at BELLCORE.COM Fri Jul 18 13:07:13 1997
From: nlj at BELLCORE.COM (Nicholas Lordi Jr)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:07:13 -0400
Subject: NAIPR: consider an AUP for the list
Message-ID: <199707181707.NAA16052@cutlass17.bellcore.com>
Perhaps when Kim is back we can discuss having an AUP for this list.
Attached is an example AUP which NANOG recently implemented.
If we don't come up with something those who have important contributions,
or plain just want to keep up with what is going on, will sign off due to
the high signal to noise ratio of this list, which is similar
to what transpired on the IAHC list.
In the meantime, take a look at what NANOG is using.
I think all of us would appreciate some voluntary restraint on the part of
those individuals who may be violating the tenets of this example NANOG AUP.
Nick
============
attached from: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html
==============
NANOG Mailing List Charter & AUP
Charter
The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for the exchange of
technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues
that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to
continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical
issues, the list will now be governed by the following guidelines:
Acceptable Use Policy
1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues
as described in the charter of NANOG.
2. Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited.
3. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged.
4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and
lack of respect for other participants are prohibited.
5. Blatant product marketing is unacceptable.
6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
discouraged.
Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally and
asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists in violating
the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, Merit Network, Inc., will take action
to filter the offender's messages to the list.
If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that are outside the
charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a request to the entire mailing
list requesting adherence to the guidelines. If the discussion continues
unabated, the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic.
From wolodkin at digitalink.com Fri Jul 18 13:36:16 1997
From: wolodkin at digitalink.com (Vince Wolodkin)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:36:16 -0400
Subject: a 2nd potential solution
References: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> <199707161826.LAA09139@chimp.juniper.net> <19970718092657.15591@priori.net>
Message-ID: <33CFA98F.3F54B22F@digitalink.com>
I had a thought along the lines of an ISPAC but at a higher level. What
is large NSPs went together in groups of two or three and got routeable
space that they ISPACed. Then they could offer a package deal to ISPs.
Let's say for example that UUnet and Sprint go together and request a
block. They can now offer multi-homing services to smaller ISP's as a
package deal, one line to Sprint, and one to UUnet. This is good for
the big provider's and good for the little providers and good for the
address space.
It's also much easier for people like UUnet, Sprint, MCI etc to go
together and get routeable space than it is for ISPs.
Perhaps Priori could find another NSP it has synergy with, and get a
shared block with the other NSP. You would then corner the market on
small ISPs because the easiest way for them to multi-home would be to
"buy the package" from Priori. Maybe you could do it with one of the
biggies.
Vince
P.S. If you do this and it is successful, I expect my check:-)
J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> It's taken me a little while to respond here, because I
> wanted to give this a lot of thought before saying anything.
>
> I apologize if anybody gets more than one of these; e-mail
> me if you need a procmail recipe to get rid of duplicates
> (based on the Message-ID header.)
>
> On Jul 16, Tony Li wrote:
>
> > Network Working Group T. Li
> > INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks
> > November 1996
> >
> >
> > Internet Service Provider Address Coalitions (ISPACs)
> >
> [ . . . ]
>
> Overall, this is a cool idea; it sounds both technically and
> sociopolitically feasable. IMHO, the most important passage
> is probably this one:
>
> > [ . . . ] The
> > address space request from an ISPAC should be regarded as if it came
> > from any ISP with the properties of the union of the members. No
> > special privileges are accorded to requests from ISPACs, so normal
> > justifications for address space would apply.
>
> So, unless somebody from the IANA or one of the regional
> registries can find a problem with this, I can't see any
> reason why it wouldn't work RIGHT NOW for some people.
>
> Of course, this isn't the best way to go for everybody. To use
> what seems to be everybody's favorite example these days, Priori
> wouldn't be likely to join an ISPAC because we are building a
> nationwide backbone (what used to be called "tier one"), but I
> can't think of any reason why we -- or any backbone provider
> with half a clue -- wouldn't support our customers in doing
> something like an ISPAC, assuming they could handle announcing
> the routes to us correctly.
>
> If anybody sets one of these up, let me know how it works out.
>
> *********************************************************
> J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> *********************************************************
From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 13:45:41 1997
From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:45:41 -0500
Subject: Hijack ?
In-Reply-To: <199707181602.MAA16892@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
References:
<01BC9358.782929E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718124541.00a66878@texoma.net>
At 12:02 PM 7/18/97 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:55:56 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
>> ARIN is currently three people from Network Solutions, Inc.
>> This is a private company launching another private company
>> to apparently "inherit" U.S. Government assets (IPv4 Addresses)
>> to use to their financial advantage.
>
>I would love to hear the legal argument in an international court of law
>stating that the US Government *owns* integers.
Actually, I think it might have been federal judge Paul Brown, Internet
Texoma's landlord here in Sherman, TX who ruled that 286, 386 and 486
didn't belong to Intel.
>From the MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995 came
, which says, in part:
"In this context, the paper argues that a usage based, free market pricing
system needs to be combined with some form of regulatory oversight to
protect against anti-competitive actions by the firms controlling the
bottleneck facilities and to ensure non- discriminatory access to emerging
networks."
>From the MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995, came